Posted on 02/07/2003 4:28:13 PM PST by blam
Iraq: Blair seeks new 'fig-leaf' resolution to avert French veto
By David Usborne in New York, John Lichfield, Paul Waugh and Anne Penketh
08 February 2003
An anxious Tony Blair and George Bush were pushing for a new "fig-leaf" United Nations resolution last night to avert a French veto and clear the way for war on Iraq.
Senior diplomats told The Independent that the planned resolution would lay down a brief deadline for Saddam Hussein to co-operate fully with UN demands but would fall short of providing an explicit authorisation of force.
President Bush would push for a "serious, effective and acceptable" UN resolution, his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said. The price of securing UN unity and thereby persuading sceptical public opinion throughout Europe and America to back the war was to opt for such a watered-down approach, diplomatic sources said. The news came as Jacques Chirac, the French President, raised the stakes by hinting that his country would use its Security Council veto to block a war.
Mr Blair faces the risk of cabinet resignations, a lasting split in the Labour Party and widespread public opposition if he backs military action without a second UN resolution. He clearly hopes the new strategy will achieve UN unity and overcome public scepticism.
The Prime Minister told BBC2's Newsnight this week he would get public opinion behind him if there were such a resolution. "I think if there's not [a new resolution] then there's a lot of persuading to do," he said.
The most recent opinion poll by YouGov/ITV News, conducted after Colin Powell's address on Wednesday, found 59 per cent of Britons would only support war if it was approved by the UN. Only 18 per cent would support action without a UN mandate.
The first drafts are being put together in London. The proposed resolution would say the regime of President Saddam was, once more, in "material breach" of obligations to disarm and co-operate with inspectors but would stop short of explicitly authorising military force.
It may be tabled soon after 14 February, when Hans Blix, the chief UN inspector, is to make a new report to the Council. Such a formula is seen as offering the best possible chance of averting a French veto of a second Iraq resolution. But the tactic may backfire, provoking Paris to dig in its heels, as it will be seen as a transparent manoeuvre to give UN cover for war without specific Security Council authorisation of military action.
British officials stressed last night the effect of declaring Iraq in "material breach" would be exactly the same, in legal terms, as authorising force. "If you say Iraq is in material breach, that is authorisation for the use of force," one official in New York said. "It amounts to the same thing."
London may be gambling that France and other countries hesitant about the military option would be ready to swallow a second resolution if its provisions did not spell out that the Council was authorising a military response. "It might make some on the Council who are squeamish about the words more able to support it," the official said. "But of course they understand the legalities and know perfectly well that if material breach is declared, that means there is a green light for use of force."
Sources close to President Chirac said France would veto a UN resolution approving military action in Iraq if faced with the choice today. The veto threat would be lifted only if France saw an "imminent danger" from Iraq, sources told the newspaper Le Monde.
M. Chirac told Mr Bush on the telephone last night: "We can disarm Saddam Hussein without going to war." In separate comments to reporters, he said "an alternative to war" still existed and called on Iraq to "accept its responsibilities" and co-operate more activelywith weapons inspectors.
Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, also underscored the rift in the Security Council by insisting it was too early for a second resolution and a diplomatic solution with Iraq should be sought.
The split among the Council's five permanent members, who have power of veto, is all the more damaging because it coincides with a visit by the UN weapons inspectors to Baghdad. Mr Blix sought reassurances that the 15-member Council was united before he left New York. Mr Bush tried to turn up the pressure, saying: "This is defining moment for the Security Council. If the Council were to allow a dictator to lie and deceive, the Council will be weak."
Wonder what "we" he is talking about?
Beautifully said, miniaturegovernment. I'm hoping France vetoes the resolution, so they will be clearly remembered as having stood with Saddam. But your prediction is probably more perceptive of France's true (lack of) character.
I don't know why we pay so much attention to FRance. They have less economic influence on/in the world than the STATE of California.
Quote of the Day by miniaturegovernment Check out the toons. That is a new screen name to me. Should I know who it is?
I don't know who miniaturegovernment is, so it's OK if you don't know, either. Just thought the person ought to be writing a regular column, if he/she isn't already.
Thanks for being the Keeper of the Quotes. We love them!
| the planned resolution would lay down a brief deadline for Saddam Hussein to co-operate fully with UN demands but would fall short of providing an explicit authorisation of force.
I think I would call that bluff. I'd go in with an explicit resolution that concludes that Saddam Hussein did not take the last chance that was offered to him, and that the use of force is now authorized. I'd also make it real clear (actually, Bush did this yesterday) that the use of force is coming, authorized or not. The UN can enjoy the pleasant fiction that it "authorized" this action, or it can be tossed into the pile with the League of Nations. Their choice. |
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.
I don't understand how this helps with anything. I seriously doubt that those members of the British public who want to see UN approval for the use of force are going to be satisfied with some kind of charade.