 |
Full Text: U.N. draft resolution on Iraq |
|
Special report: Iraq |
Posted on 03/07/2003 3:40:01 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Faceoff at the U.N. today as U.S. pushes resolution
Britain trying for compromise; China lines up on other side
03/07/2003
UNITED NATIONS – The Security Council stages another diplomatic showdown Friday – not between America and Iraq, but between the United States and other members of the United Nations.
Secretary of State Colin Powell will attend a key Security Council meeting to argue that the United Nations' credibility is on the line, though veto-wielding members are prepared to block a resolution that would clear the way for war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
With the United States prepared to act with or without U.N. sanction, American ally Britain began discussing a possible compromise Thursday that would give Mr. Hussein a final deadline to declare and destroy any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs.
| WHAT'S NEXT | |
|
On the eve of Friday's debate, Chinese President Jiang Zemin announced he would join France, Russia and Germany in opposing any pro-war resolution, saying U.N. weapons inspectors are working to disarm Mr. Hussein.
Critics of the U.S. approach say that international stability is at stake and could be shattered by a too-hasty attack against Iraq.
"We can only achieve peace together," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said. "And to do it, we would need the United Nations – to organize, to bring their legitimacy to the action of the international community in Iraq."
Bush administration officials said that Mr. Hussein is defying the U.N. inspectors and that those who rely on them are ignoring Iraq's attempts to secure weapons of mass destruction.
"The moment we find ourselves in now is a critical moment where we are being tested and where the Security Council – the United Nations – the international community is being tested," Mr. Powell told a Senate subcommittee Thursday.
Mr. Powell arrived in New York Thursday for meetings with fellow diplomats, including Mr. Straw and Mr. de Villepin.
Help after war
In one sense, the Security Council debate may not mean much. Even if the United States fails to win support for a resolution – or its resolution is vetoed by France, Russia or China – President Bush has made it clear he would lead a "coalition of the willing" into Iraq if Mr. Hussein fails to disarm.
But the diplomatic fallout will go a long way in deciding how much international support the United States gets down the line – on anything from rebuilding Iraq to fighting the war on terrorism.
| Also Online | ||||||
|
The United States, France and the 13 other members of the Security Council come together Friday to hear a report from chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and his nuclear counterpart, Mohamed el-Baradei. But attention is focused more on the ensuing debate among Security Council members over the pro-force resolution backed by the United States, Britain and Spain.
The resolution needs a three-fifths vote, or nine of the 15 Security Council members, plus no veto by any of the five permanent members. The three sponsoring countries have one solid ally in Bulgaria and possibly a fifth vote in Pakistan.
France, Russia, China, and Germany have at least one other supporter in Syria.
Chile and Cameroon also have also criticized the proposed resolution, but U.S. officials believe they remain in play, along with three other Security Council members: Mexico, Angola and Guinea.
All are being lobbied heavily. Supporters and opponents of the threatened war are expected to look to different parts of Dr. Blix's report.
Foes of an invasion pointed to Dr. Blix's statements of improved cooperation by Iraq. They cited its destruction of missiles with ranges that exceed U.N. limits and pledges to document how it has destroyed anthrax and nerve gas.
Bush administration officials stressed the tardiness of these decisions, arguing that Mr. Hussein is offering minor concessions in order to "string along" the international community. Mr. Powell plans to stress Dr. Blix's complaints that Iraq has not fully accounted for chemical and biological weapons that Mr. Hussein was reported to have had in the 1990s.
Mr. Hussein has denied the U.S. allegations, calling them a pretext for an attempt to grab Iraqi oil.
Britain's compromise
The new resolution does not explicitly call for armed force, officials pointed out. It simply says that Iraq continues to violate U.N. disarmament resolutions, including the one that the Security Council passed unanimously Nov. 8. That document, Resolution 1441, re-inserted inspectors into Iraq and called for "serious consequences" in the event of noncompliance.
Bush administration officials said they believe that Resolution 1441 already authorizes armed force, but they would like to broaden international support. The push for this new resolution, they added, is also designed to help out British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who faces heavy war opposition from constituents.
In London, British diplomats called their compromise plan "a joint proposal" by the United States and Britain that had "enthusiastic support" in Washington. Diplomats acknowledged that the softened resolution reflects the political difficulty of persuading Security Council members to back a new resolution.
"It's a negotiation," one diplomat said. "We're looking to change the resolution a bit to secure more votes."
The compromise resolution would set "a very short" deadline for Mr. Hussein to comply with U.N. demands that Iraq disarm, British officials said, and it might contain some benchmarks for determining his cooperation.
Opponents of the resolution called it a blank check for an unnecessary war. They include France, Russia and China, whose status as permanent members of the Security Council gives them the right of veto.
"We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force," Mr. de Villepin said.
Most analysts anticipate a final decision next week.
Mr. Powell's decision to attend Friday's meeting sets the stage for a replay of the tense Security Council hearing Feb. 14. Mr. Powell blanched when normally staid U.N. delegates applauded Mr. de Villepin's call for more time for inspections.
Nine days earlier, Mr. Powell urged the United Nations to take action, displaying surveillance photos and audiotapes that, he said, showed Iraqi officials conspiring to hide chemical and biological weapons sites from inspectors.
At the Feb. 14 meeting, Dr. Blix and some Security Council members challenged parts of Mr. Powell's case, particularly his efforts to link Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorists.
Even if war with Iraq is inevitable, the diplomatic disputes will linger, analysts said, threatening international cooperation on a host of challenges.
"There's a lot of legitimate concern about the U.S. arrogating to itself the sole authority to decide when and where to intervene to protect our power," said Joseph Montville, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, said that once the debate over war in Iraq is past, there is a natural place for contentious countries to come back together – the United Nations.
"After the fact," she said, "the U.N. will be as important as ever in rebuilding Iraq, taking care of refugees and monitoring human rights."
Staff writer Gregory Katz in London contributed to this report.
E-mail djackson@dallasnews.com
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.