UN vote delayed in bid to swing sceptics

The Independent (UK) ^ | March 10, 2003 | Paul Waugh

[AntiGuv]

Britain and the United States will launch a desperate drive to win wider support for a war on Iraq today by agreeing to important concessions on a second UN resolution.

The two countries have decided to delay until later this week a vote in the Security Council and have accepted the idea of a short, clear "checklist" of disarmament demands for Saddam Hussein, defining the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction yet to be accounted for. British diplomats in New York will even discuss suggestions from the so-called "swing six" Security Council members that the 17 March deadline for compliance by Iraq be put back. But Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, showed little sign of flexibility on extending the deadline beyond 17 March.

General Powell and Tony Blair aim to secure a consensus among Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon, the members whose votes could secure the UK-US-Spanish resolution.

The political dangers of not obtaining a fresh UN mandate were underlined yesterday when Mr Blair suffered the first resignation over the issue. Andy Reed, the parliamentary private secretary to Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, quit in protest at the lack of time being given to UN weapons inspectors.

[1Old Pro]

Sheesh, WE'RE TAKING TOO LONG JERKING AROUND. LET'S ROLL

[Mister Magoo]

One thing - if France, Russia, or China vetoes the resolution, what difference does it make how many votes we get?

[AgThorn]

so someone resigns, big deal. I do hope that we stick to our guns and, sorry Mr Blair, but this has got to go forward NOW - no more delays.

[goldylight]

Feedback i am hearing from people is - how important can iraq be if we keep delaying. i am starting to agree - this is ridiculous.

[Amerigomag]

will launch a desperate drive

I can think of many adjectives to describe 43's fan dance at the UN but desperate isn't near the top of the list.

Adaptive is at the top of my list of suspects.

[mewzilla]

Apparently it would make Blair and the idiots at Foggy Bottom happy.

[Dog]

Looks like Britain wants to offer up disarmment tasks for Saddam to complete....before March 17th.

I give!!!!

[Steven W.]

if there is a veto, it doesn't matter how many other votes there are. However, according to Chirac a couple weeks back, if there's a veto and the coalition of the willing goes anyway, the country that vetoed will forever be destined for the laugh-heap of history or, in the case of France, ensure that nation continue to be mocked & ridiculed for yet another generation to come. Talk about being stuck between a hard place and a harder place ROFLMAO

[anniegetyourgun]

"Andy Reed, the parliamentary private secretary to Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, quit in protest at the lack of time being given to UN weapons inspectors."

Talk about cutting off nose to spite face!

[GeorgiaDawg]

This is asinine. All this does is give France & Germany more ammo. What would this accomplish? Even if we get countries like "Angola" on board and the resolution passes, France is bound & determined to veto it. I say, let's move ahead!

[MamaLucci]

Per breaking news on Fox News, General Tommy Franks
is heading to Qatar.....looks like we ARE rolling.

[dawn53]

They're talking about delaying, the article doesn't say we're talking about delaying.

British diplomats in New York will even discuss suggestions from the so-called "swing six" Security Council members that the 17 March deadline for compliance by Iraq be put back. But Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, showed little sign of flexibility on extending the deadline beyond 17 March

[GeorgiaDawg]

Per breaking news on Fox News, General Tommy Franks
is heading to Qatar.....looks like we ARE rolling.

This is breaking news?!?

[kitkat]

If Bush can bring this home with no lives lost, he'll deserve the Hero of the World Award.

The reason why he's taking so long to go to war with Iraq is NOT because Iraq is not important, but because Bush has carefully laid his plans to try to bring about a peaceful ending to Saddam and his WMDs.

And if he succeeds, the socialists will claim that THEY did it by protesting. I believe Bush knows this, but cares more about the safety of Americans than politics.

[goldylight]

I read that wrong. Thanks.

[Steven W.]

W's statement the other day about calling for the vote was a false statement

Don't be absurd - there will be a vote (on something). Recall when he said that the UK had not even tabled the resolution which they later followed with in session on Friday. W's statement there will, indeed, be a vote drew the line in the sand for the axis of weasels that they'll actually be called to account and to be prepared for the implications they'll commit themselves in time of history.

[1Old Pro]

"Andy Reed, the parliamentary private secretary

WOW, that's high level. When the assisant to the media secretry resigns let me know....that would be really series.