Posted on 03/10/2003 5:19:31 PM PST by AntiGuv
UNITED NATIONS - President Bush's urgent phone campaign to world leaders, seeking their support for a tough deadline on Iraq, came up short Monday — forcing a delay of the Security Council's vote and opening the doors to a possible compromise to give Saddam Hussein more time.
The United States had hoped to present the resolution to the council on Tuesday, setting a March 17 deadline for Iraqi disarmament or war. But the vote was put on hold when it became evident that America and its allies had not yet won the nine votes they needed for a majority.
But even nine votes wouldn't be enough. French President Jacques Chirac declared that his country would veto any resolution that opened the way to war. The Russians also said they would vote against the proposal as it was currently worded.
Both the United States and Britain said they were willing to negotiate both the deadline and other changes to the resolution.
Among the changes being considered: adding a list of tests — or "benchmarks," as they are called — that the Iraqis must pass to prove their disarmament and cooperation.
Some of the uncommitted countries were talking about delaying the deadline a month, until April 17 — though it was clear that such a proposal stood no chance with the United States, as hundreds of thousands of American soldiers awaited their orders in the Persian Gulf.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said a vote on the resolution would not come Tuesday. He said consultations were ongoing and a vote could come anytime later in the week.
"The vote will be the day we get nine or 10 votes, and I think we're getting close," said Spanish Ambassador Inocencio Arias, whose country is cosponsoring the resolution with the United States and Britain.
But on the surface, at least, Monday was not a good day for the coalition's efforts.
Pakistan's prime minister said for the first time publicly that his country, a key swing vote on the council, wouldn't support war with Iraq. And Chile, another vote which Washington is after, suggested it is not prepared to embrace the resolution without changes.
"We know our vote in the council is very important, and that's why we seek a different alternative to the resolution proposed last Friday," said Chilean Foreign Minister Soledad Alvear.
The resolution — which authorizes war anytime after March 17 unless Iraq proves before then that it has disarmed — requires nine "yes" votes. Approval also requires that France, Russia and China withhold their vetoes — either by abstaining or voting in favor.
The United States is assured the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico leaning heavily toward the U.S. position.
But with Germany, Syria and now Pakistan preparing abstentions or "no" votes, Washington is left trying to canvass the support of Chile, Angola and Guinea.
Meanwhile, in Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair struggled to head off a growing revolt within his own party unhappy with his Iraq policy. A third of the Labor Party lawmakers are already on record opposing Blair's pro-U.S. stance, and on Monday his International Development secretary, Clare Short, threatened to quit over the issue.
Noting the pressure at home and at the United Nations, Blair said he was open to a compromise.
"We are talking to all the other countries about how we ensure that we can make a proper judgment about whether Saddam is cooperating or not," he said.
"What people are asking us to do is define more precisely for them, to define what it is that would allow us to say, 'Yes, he is cooperating,' or not."
One example, Blair said, would be whether Iraq was allowing inspectors to interview scientists outside the country.
Diplomats said the benchmarks could be presented in the form of a presidential statement — a diplomatic text that everyone in the council could sign on to whether they supported the resolution or not.
The council was briefly united in November when it passed Resolution 1441, creating new powers for weapons inspectors and warning Iraq to accept a final opportunity to disarm or face serious consequences.
The United States and Britain believe Saddam Hussein has failed to meet those tests. Their resolution would authorize a war unless he can convince the council before March 17 that he has fully disarmed.
If the resolution is defeated, Bush and Blair have said they would be prepared to go to war anyway with a coalition of willing nations. But U.N. support would give the war international legitimacy and guarantee that members of the organization share the costs of rebuilding Iraq.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking in the Netherlands, said: "If the United States and others would go outside the council and take military action, it will not be in conformity with the charter."
"The legitimacy and support of any such action will be seriously impaired," he said.
But the White House argued the opposite Monday, saying a lack of support would hurt U.N. credibility.
If the United Nations fails to act, Fleischer said in Washington, "that means the United Nations will not be the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein. Another international body will disarm Saddam Hussein. So this will remain an international action, it's just the United Nations will have chosen to put itself on the sidelines."
But France and Russia seemed undeterred, saying Monday they would oppose the U.S.-backed resolution.
"No matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no,'" Chirac said in a televised interview in France Monday. "There is no cause for war to achieve the objective that we fixed — the disarmament of Iraq.
His foreign minister was meeting top Angolan officials Monday at the start of a quick trip to lobby the undecided African members of the council.
In Moscow, Russia's foreign minister also indicated his country would veto the current resolution.
"If the draft resolution that currently has been introduced for consideration and which contains ultimatum demands that cannot be met is nonetheless put to a vote then Russia will vote against this resolution," Igor Ivanov said, according to the Interfax news agency.
A French or Russian "no" vote would not go down in history as a veto if they were voting with the majority of nine needed to defeat the U.S.-backed measure.
Facing the veto threats, Bush made an urgent round of phone calls to world leaders trying to salvage the resolution ahead of Security Council consultations late Monday. Among those who received presidential calls — Chinese President Jiang Zemin, who also was called by Blair.
The very best thing that could happen would be for this resolution to fail, while we win and disarm Saddam. Probably the worst thing that that could happen would be for France to vote FOR a resolution.
If, as the President has said, Saddam is dangerous and a threat to this nation (and I think that is true) then we need to UNLOAD HIM NOW!
The U.N. could really have fun turning that into chaos stew.
Contrary to what some people here think, Bush would prefer a UN resolution because he'd like the Security Council to mean something. This wasn't a secret plot by him to dismantle the UN.
His job would be made a little easier with a UN resolution, if for no other reason, Tony Blair's job is made easier.
So he wants it, and he's working in good faith to get it. I don't know how hopeful he is, because he's stated from the very beginning that he doesn't need one. That won't change no matter what happens this week.
We aren't going to have any problems worth talking about no matter how this vote turns out. My only fear is that the lessons we are learning about the UN will be forgotten after we are victorious in Baghdad, and it comes grovelling back saying that we're forgiven and, in fact, right all along.
If true, stupid, dumb, moronic, idiotic, not smart, and unwise.
Enough with the UN already. Every day that passes risks more lives of American troops.
It galls me that we tried to bribe Turkey and now we're grovelling in front of Guinea and Cameroon, and BENDING TO THEIR WILL by agreeing to haggle over timelines and bull like that.
I hope like hell it's not true, and this is all a smokescreen to catch everyone by surprise when we call a vote tomorrow. Otherwise, my respect for this administration, especially after what the President said last week at the press conference, will rapidly diminish.
No more resolutions. Nor more editing. No more begging. No more bribing. No more UN. Enough!
Give the GO order, Mr. President!
We have given Saddam two years to prepare defenses. What kind of stategy is this? We bluster and threaten and then beg support. The speak loudly and carry a little stick does not build respect from the rest of the world.
It makes the world regard us as a nation of wimps. We confirm it by avoiding a showdown with NK when they are more lethal than Iraq. We had the world's sympathy and understanding after 9/11 but it has been completely frittered away with our obssessive pandering to the UN and lack of direction.
Right-o...
The longer this charade goes on, the more perilous this mission becomes for U.S. troops.
PULL THE TRIGGER MR. PRESIDENT!!!
No, this is Colin Powell thinking he can muscle those weasels at the UN.
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.