Posted on 01/31/2003 4:15:35 PM PST by blam
Blair and Bush split over need for UN mandate
By Andy McSmith and Rupert Cornwell in Washington
01 February 2003
Tony Blair and George Bush met last night as the thorny question of a second UN resolution threatened to cause a rift in the previously solid London-Washington relationship.
Mr Blair flew into the US early yesterday to warn that America's own closest allies would come under severe domestic pressure if the President launched a military strike against Iraq without waiting for a clear mandate from the UN Security Council.
Interviewed on CNN, Mr Blair said: "It's right that we go for a second resolution because that is the way of saying this is an issue the international community is not going to duck." But the Prime Minister added that "the United Nations has got to be the way of dealing with this issue, not the way of avoiding it."
Mr Blair's insistence on taking the UN route contrasts with the official White House view that a second resolution is "desirable, not mandatory".
Before the two leaders met at the White House – the venue was switched from the presidential retreat at Camp David because of bad weather – Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, warned that Washington was ready to go ahead regardless.
"Our purpose is not to follow process but to end the terrible threat," said Mr Cheney, a leading hawk on Iraq. "Whatever action is required, we will defend the freedom and security of the American people."
The US would not, he reiterated, permit others to decide its policy. He again accused Saddam Hussein of aiding and protecting terrorists, including al-Qa'ida. But British officials have shown scepticism about the evidence that Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, will present to the Security Council on Wednesday. For Britain, the crucial issue is Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Officials in London have never believed that the Iraqi government was involved in the 11 September atrocity although they say there is evidence of some links between Iraq and al-Qa'ida.
Mr Blair told the BBC yesterday that, as matters stood, President Saddam was in breach of UN resolution 1441, and that he was "sceptical" the Iraqi dictator would comply. But he wants UN weapons' inspectors to be given more time to test Iraq's willingness to co-operate, so that the grounds for war will be laid by the inspectors rather than hawks in the Bush administration.
But an extended timetable, which could delay a decision into March, will test Washington's patience. Mr Bush has spoken of a diplomatic window of "weeks not months" and Richard Boucher, General Powell's spokesman at the State Department, envisioned a window of a couple of weeks.
Taken literally, the window would close on 14 February, the date of the next report due from the weapons inspectors who are searching Iraqi sites for evidence of the banned chemical, germ, and nuclear weapons programmes Britain and the US insist are being pursued.
Mr Blair's conversation is believed to have focussed on what a second UN resolution would say. US officials have indicated Washington would only agree if it contained a specific deadline for inspectors.Washington will not tolerate the weeks of wrangling that preceded resolution 1441.
The signs are that if President Saddam has not demonstrably disarmed when the next report is filed, Mr Bush is unlikely to accept anymore inspections. The US has said all along that Iraq had to come clean voluntarily, not for the inspectors to be led on a game of hide-and-seek. "There is still an opportunity for war to be avoided, but it will not be avoided by us looking away," General Powell said yesterday.
This was a pretty dumb thing for Blair to say just before meeting with Bush. No wonder the President was ticked off today.
This report is from a leftwing newspaper. Did Blair actually say that? Or did that come from some unnamed source? I don't doubt that Blair wants any war to be sanctioned by the UN, but I still have a feeling that when Bush is ready to go, Blair will be there right behind him. He's in a tough position, because his own party isn't behind him, and neither is the British public. However, I think he'd take that over being lumped in with the "axis of weasels" crowd.
This is not what Blair said. Blair simply wants Bush's support to force the UN Security Council to address the issue of Iraq's breach sometime in the next six weeks.
Blair would prefer UN support but failing that he wants to force the UN Security Council members to go on record as unwilling to pass judgement on Iraq .
Strictly a guess but I suspect a negative voting record by several EU members my play into Balir's hands downstream with the internal politics of the European Union.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.