Prime Minister (Canada) Turns Hawkish On War

The National Post ^ | February 25, 2003 | Joe Lauria, Mike Blanchfield, AP Files

[Loyalist]

PM turns hawkish on Iraq war
Chrétien issues stern warning; U.S., Britain push to authorize war

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien took his most hawkish stance on Iraq to date yesterday, warning that Saddam Hussein has only weeks to disarm, while at the United Nations, the U.S. and Britain pushed closer to war with a draft Security Council resolution that would authorize conflict by mid-March.

Mr. Chrétien blasted the NDP for "sing-song" anti-war rhetoric, while continuing to hold open his options on whether Canada would back a U.S.-led war on Iraq.

But the prime minister's remarks appear to echo the two-to-three-week timetable the U.S. and Britain are laying out for Mr. Saddam to comply with UN Resolution 1441, ordering Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction or face war.

"This situation cannot last forever," Mr. Chrétien told the House of Commons. "I think that some weeks should be given to Saddam to comply very precisely with Resolution 1441."

That resolution passed last November returned weapons inspectors to Iraq for the first time since 1998 and warned Baghdad it had one "last chance" to disarm or face "serious consequences."

Yesterday the U.S., Britain and Spain together tabled a one-page draft that simply states Iraq has "failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441."

The new draft refers in its preamble to 1441, but does not again explicitly spell out the threat of war. Nor does it set a deadline. The preamble simply recalls that the Security Council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its (disarmament) obligations."

It also recalls that 1441 stated that Iraq "remains in material breach of its obligations" and "afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply."

The language is intended to allow countries to support the draft, while interpreting it in a way to satisfy their anti-war domestic opinion, U.S. and British diplomats said.

Nine votes with no vetoes are needed to pass the draft, an uncertain outcome at the moment in the deeply divided council.

Eleven of 15 members oppose the draft, with only Spain and Bulgaria supporting it.

Countries not normally on the centre stage of international diplomacy have been thrust into the debate. Cameroon, Guinea, Syria, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan are members of the non-aligned movement, which issued a strong anti-war statement at its annual summit.

If the six non-aligned nations remained opposed to war, only one more nation would be needed to defeat the new resolution. With five other countries -- Germany, France, Russia, China and Syria -- adamantly opposed, that seems likely. The U.S. strategy is to gain nine votes and then challenge France, Russia or China to veto it, U.S. diplomats said. French President Jacques Chirac has threatened to block the measure if necessary.

Mr. Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in return yesterday unveiled their proposal for beefed-up inspections as a counter-measure to the U.S.-British-Spanish draft.

"The aim is to establish a timetable for Iraq's disarmament, program by program, relating to weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Chirac said. "In this context, we see no reason to change our logic, which is the logic of peace, and turn toward a logic of war."

The French-German proposal calls the military option a "last resort." It says inspections are only now gaining ground, that Iraqi co-operation is improving and that so far no banned weapons have been found.

It calls for increased pressure on Iraq to comply by doubling the number of inspectors and setting a series of disarmament benchmarks for Baghdad.

The proposal says that chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix should submit a report on the remaining disarmament tasks and then report on it every three weeks to the council, with a final report after four months.

Washington and London reject this drawn-out process and are bound to be further angered by Mr. Saddam's declaration to CBS news anchor Dan Rather that he has no intention of destroying his long-range Al-Samoud 2 missiles, as ordered to by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. He also challenged U.S. President George W. Bush to a live debate. Iraq's behaviour has been "like taking one bullet out of the barrel of a gun and the rest of the gun is still armed and loaded," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "The only issue the president is concerned with is the complete and total disarmament of Iraq and regime change in Iraq."

In Ottawa, Mr. Chrétien maintained his hope that a peaceful resolution can be found. "The debate is starting today," Mr. Chrétien said. "Of course we are all pushing as much as we can on Saddam Hussein to comply. Nobody, neither the Americans, nor the Brits, nor the Spaniards, nor the French, Germans or Russians, hopes for a war.

"War has to be a last resort."

But as a Canadian warship, HMCS Iroquois, set sail for the Persian Gulf, the prime minister was forced to fend off accusations from the NDP that it was an indirect way of joining the U.S. military build-up in the region.

"Is the prime minister not simply dragging Canada into Bush's war through the back door?" charged NDP foreign affairs critic Alexa McDonough.

Mr. Chrétien blasted the NDP for its firm anti-war stance. "Of course the NDP do not want to be citizens of the world. They think a good sing-song would solve all the problems."

Even if the U.S.-British-Spanish draft fails, Mr. Bush has repeatedly said he would lead a coalition of his own into war. He has also said a second resolution isn't necessary.

But British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing a revolt in his own party if he goes to war alongside the U.S. lacking the new resolution. Mr. Blair is to address Parliament today and faces a vote there tomorrow.

Strong support in Parliament may lessen his need for the Security Council draft to pass, diplomats said.

"This resolution is a strong political objective of the United Kingdom, (but) it is not necessary to proceed," said Britain's UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. "President Saddam is determined to hold on to his weapons of mass destruction, and this will not be allowed to stand," Sir Jeremy added.

Mr. Bush yesterday challenged the Security Council to agree to the draft resolution. "It's a moment for this body to determine whether it's going to be relevant as the world confronts threats in the 21st century. Is it going to be a body that means what it says? We certainly hope so."

While the U.S.-British draft sets no explicit deadline, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said yesterday, "We will be allowing a good period of up to two weeks or maybe a little more before we will ask for a decision."

Mr. Bush's spokesman said the president agrees with this timetable.

© Copyright 2003 The Ottawa Citizen

[Loyalist]

There goes our national embarrassment, le p'tit gars de Shawinigan, trying to play both sides of the fence, talking war and doing nothing to back it up.

[Chi-townChief]

I think this is a misprint - Mr. Chrétien is obviously MAWKISH as opposed to hawkish.

[etcetera]

Maybe The Cretin smells a winner?

[albertabound]

No way, he is just being froggish.