Posted on 02/27/2003 8:18:41 PM PST by 11th_VA
Blix damns Iraq: too little, too late
Interim report to criticise Saddam's delays in disarming
Saddam Hussein's prospects of staving off a war that will crush his regime all but evaporated last night when UN weapons inspectors said repeated demands for Iraq to disarm had shown only "very limited" results.
While the UN Security Council met in a private session to discuss the Anglo-American draft resolution that would pave the way for military action, a copy of the latest report by the chief weapons inspector, obtained by the BBC, said Iraq could have done much more. Hans Blix also said it was "hard to understand" why measures now being taken by Iraq "could not have been initiated sooner". The leaked report will provide comfort to Tony Blair, who was warned by cabinet ministers yesterday that the rebellion by 121 Labour MPs on Wednesday night had made "essential" the securing of a second UN resolution.
British officials at the UN headquarters in New York said that, while those members of the council opposed to military action would "find something" of comfort in the report, they predicted it would help the Bush camp to achieve the nine votes it requires to pass the second resolution.
As diplomats continued to talk behind closed doors, there were signs in Iraq that President Saddam was already aware there was little he could do to avoid a military strike against his country. American military officials said they had detected movements of elite troops into new defensive positions. In recent days, trucks had been seen transferring members of a Republican Guard division from a base near the city of Mosul to the President's hometown of Tikrit.
But even as the countdown to war continued, President Saddam was still attempting to persuade UN inspectors that his co-operation was genuine. Reports said that an announcement that Baghdad had decided to start destroying its al-Samoud 2 missiles – one of the weapons inspectors' demands – was imminent.
Mr Blix has dispatched his deputy, Demetrius Perricos, to the Iraqi capital to discuss "the pace of the destruction" of the missiles. To some members of the Security Council, the issue of the al-Samoud 2 missiles – which have a range that exceeds limits set by the UN – has become something of a litmus test of Iraq's will to comply. President Bush has claimed they represent only the "tip of the iceberg" of Iraq's illegal weapons.
In New York, America and Britain continued to try to build support for a second resolution, focusing their arm-twisting efforts on the six council members – Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Pakistan and Mexico – which are, as yet, undecided.
To date, Britain and America can be sure of the support of only Spain and Bulgaria with Syria, Germany and France expressing their opposition to the resolution. China and Russia, while not supportive, are unlikely to use their vetoes.
Downing Street said a pledge on destruction of missiles still fell far short of Iraq's obligations to disarm. Mr Blair's spokesman said: "We always thought this was likely to be part of the drip feed of concessions. This is how he [Saddam] plays the concession game. It is not the full, immediate co-operation that resolution 1441 demands."
In New York, a UN official said some of the council member states were "sitting on fences, asking lots of questions".
The report by Mr Blix is due to be passed to the council's members today. He will not meet the 15 countries face to face until later next week.
Mr Blair flew to Madrid last night for talks with Jose Maria Aznar, Spain's Prime Minister. Earlier, Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, and Clare Short, were among many ministers who made clear to the Prime Minister they shared many of the concerns of the rebellious backbenchers.
The ministers said they were "hurting" politically in their constituencies over public fears that Britain will back an American-led war without a new UN mandate. Downing Street insisted the Prime Minister would not be swayed from his policy on action in Iraq.
I hope everyone is noticing how ridiculous this is. What does the approval of Angola have to do with anything, for God's sake. And yet, people act like if we don't get these 6 irrelevant, weak, corrupt states to go along, action against Iraq is somehow illegitimate. Be real!
An action is not just or unjust because of who backs it. I wish people who recognize an ad hominem argument would recognize an ad nationem argument.
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.