 |
|
Posted on 03/09/2003 2:30:46 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Britain Says U.N. May Back Iraq Deadline
|
|
|
LONDON (AP) -- Britain insisted Saturday that the U.N. Security Council could still back a final deadline for Iraq to prove it is disarming, as France mounted a last-minute foray to rally opposition to war.
While U.S. and British diplomats worked behind the scenes to line up support at the United Nations, France's foreign minister scheduled a visit to Africa to win swing votes and French President Jacques Chirac called for an emergency summit to find a compromise.
France, a leader in opposition to war, had been insisting the U.S.-British drive for a U.N. resolution was doomed, but its sudden diplomatic activity indicated Paris may no longer be so sure.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he was confident of winning majority support for the resolution he presented to the council Friday, which gives Saddam Hussein a March 17 deadline to prove he was disarming. The United States and Britain have massed some 250,000 troops for a possible attack on Iraq.
"We are at a difficult time, but I believe that by the process of argument we should be able to get to a point where we can get a second resolution," Straw told the British Broadcasting Corp.
|
|
|
President Bush and other top U.S. officials joined in a final, intense flurry of uphill diplomacy to win U.N. backing for a proposal opening the way for an attack.
"Unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.
Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice planned to lobby allies by telephone through the weekend and until next week's planned vote on the new resolution. Aides did not rule out travel for the three.
France, Russia and China - which hold vetoes on the Security Council - rejected the resolution proposal, put forward Friday after chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei told the U.N. that some real disarmament had been achieved.
Instead, France called for a summit of the leaders of the 15 Security Council nations to find a compromise on Iraq.
The United States rejected that idea, but Chirac was calling other leaders and seeking their support, his office said Saturday. Chirac had received a positive response, his office said, without elaborating or mentioning leaders he had consulted.
"War is not a small thing," the president's office said. "When you declare death or life, this merits being taken to the highest level of responsibility."
France insists the Anglo-American proposal won't gain the necessary nine votes to win a majority on the 15-member council. The United States and Britain are backed by Spain and Bulgaria, while France has the support of Russia, China, Germany and Syria.
Both sides are fighting for the votes of the six other members - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin's office said Saturday he would visit Angola, Cameroon and Guinea in the next few days to seek their support. Paris has claimed to have the support of the African nations, but British diplomats were increasingly hopeful of getting their votes.
Mexico and Chile are also seen as leaning toward approving the resolution for fear of offending the United States, some diplomats said.
British diplomats insisted Saturday that at least five of the six would eventually back the resolution. Although France and Russia could then veto the resolution, Britain would consider a nine vote majority to be moral vindication.
The United States and Britain have said they are prepared to go to war with a "coalition of the willing" if the U.N. does not sanction force. But British Prime Minister Tony Blair is eager for U.N. approval for war because of strong domestic opposition.
Stepping up the diplomatic rhetoric, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned the United States that unilateral military action would violate the U.N. charter.
"If the United States unilaterally begins military action in relation to Iraq, it would violate the U.N. Charter and, of course, when the U.N. Charter is violated, the Security Council must gather, discuss the situation and make the corresponding decisions," Ivanov said.
U.S. and British diplomats still hope Moscow will abstain in the vote rather than risk a diplomatic break with Washington.
Japan backed the resolution Saturday, urging the Security Council to pass it. While Japan is not on the council, it is a major source of foreign aid - an important consideration for the poor nations on the body.
An Iraqi solidier looks at a U.N. weapons inspectors' car entering the al-Aziziya base southeast of Baghdad Saturday March 8, 2003. Iraq has been unearthing 157 R-400 aerial bombs filled with anthrax, aflatoxin and botulin toxin that it says it destroyed there in 1991. Inspectors were to analyze samples from the site to verify if they match Iraqi claims. (AP Photo/Ali Haider)
The Interactive links and Latest News Links work for me. The are pretty informative too . . .
In any case, I'm with you !
The worst possible outcome now is that the resolution will pass. Whether it passes or not, we're going in. But if it passes, it'll legitimize the UN because it makes it look as if we're going in because the UN finally gave us permission.
Last week, before Bush's press conference, there were three things that could have happened:
1) We pull the resolution and don't put it up for a vote;
2) We put it up for a vote, and it passes;
3) We put it up for a vote, and it fails.
The first situation was the worst of the three. If we pulled the resolution before a vote and then went to war, it would send the message that we feared the UN would stop us, and that rather than risk failure of passage, we went ahead without a vote. That would imply the UN tells us what to do. Thankfully, this situation was avoided when Bush said he'd force the vote and get everyone to take a stand.
The second situation is also bad because it implies that we're going in because the UN didn't say no, and that had the UN said no, we might not have gone in.
The third situation, however, would show the world that even though the UN said no, we're going in anyway because the UN can't stop us from doing what we have to do.
If the resolution gets vetoed, the UN self-destructs. If it passes, the UN survives and can claim authority even if that authority exists only in its own mind... and in the minds of its enabling proponents.
The very countries we need to get permission from in order to defend ourselves. What a coincidence!</ sarcasm>
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.
