Mandate may be abandoned before war

Evening Standard (U.K.) ^ | 03/12/03

[Pokey78]

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has acknowledged that Britain may have to abandon hopes of securing a new UN resolution before going to war with Iraq.

At a news conference at the Foreign Office, he repeatedly refused to say whether the draft resolution tabled by Britain, the US and Spain would be put to a vote in the Security Council.

Earlier, his Spanish counterpart Ana Palacio openly accepted that the resolution may be withdrawn, citing the threat by President Jacques Chirac to wield the French veto "whatever the circumstances".

The acceptance that the resolution may have to be dropped will have come as a bitter blow to Tony Blair, who desperately needs a new UN mandate for war if he is to avoid a potentially catastrophic split in the Labour Party.

Earlier, at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Blair had assured Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith that he still intended to put the resolution to a vote in the Security Council.

He even announced a series of six "benchmarks" against which Iraqi compliance with UN demands to disarm could be judged in a final attempt to win round the undecided council members.

But just five hours later, Mr Straw refused to guarantee that there would be a vote on a new resolution before military action was launched.

"What I guarantee is that we are working as hard as we possibly can to secure a second resolution," he said.

"We are having to do so in circumstances in which one of the the permanent members of the Security Council has said, whatever the circumstances, they will veto a resolution, so that is not easy.

"But that's where we are at the moment that we have to make other decisions in the light of circumstances."

[mhking]

We don't need it. Let's roll.

[Happygal]

We are having to do so in circumstances in which one of the the permanent members of the Security Council has said, whatever the circumstances, they will veto a resolution, so that is not easy.

How reasonable of Chiraq...veto no matter what the circumstances, eh?

No need for a second resolution under those circumstances. Time to roll.

[rwfromkansas]

Those benchmarks are a joke and a cakewalk for lying Saddam...no acountability.

We better either NOT propose the benchmarks or drop the resolution altogether.

[Constitution Day]

Damn straight. The UN can pound sand, while our soldiers march toward Baghdad.

[clintonh8r]

The fact that the so-called second resolution has any life left in it at all tells me one thing, and it isn't good: Bush is still listening to Powell, the (former) Perfumed Prince of the Pentagon who is just another ego-driven one world enthusiast in striped pants. He is taking W's political future down in the process, and paving the way for a RAT landslide next year. Nobody hopes I'm wrong more than I do...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Tony Blair needs is, and he needs us right now.

Blair has been there for Bush and the US at every turn, we need to be there for him.

Dubya needs to go and stand up for Tony in Parliament.

[Luis Gonzalez]

After Iraq, Chiraq.

[clintonh8r]

You're kidding. All the delays have been to give Blair cover. We needed him when Powell convinced everybody that the UN and world "opinion" mattered. As it turns out, that whole "strategery" was a huge mistake. Now, we're a political liability to Blair and he's an impediment to our military plans because of more delays. Time for an amicable divorce while it's still possible.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, this hasn't been a mistake.

This will topple the UN.

There's never been any question that we're going in.

There was one world leader sitting in the audience when Bush delivered his post 9/11 speech, that was Tony Blair.

You can't hang him out to dry.

[js1138]

Time to say that we go in based on 1441, in the absence of a resolution forbidding it.

[Spyder]

How do the Brits feel about the French? Somehow I never thought of them as Francophiles... you'd think Blair could channel that dislike somehow the same way more and more Americans are siding with Bush.

[clintonh8r]

Militarily, we never needed the Brits. We would not have needed them politically if W hadn't followed Powell's disastrous advice to go to the UN for "approval." Far from hanging him out to dry, I think going it alone would actually be a favor to Blair at this point. It would relieve him of a huge political liability. Besides, we're in a very difficult position now. We would be better off unfettered by allies and the agendas they bring with them. Go in now and go in alone.

[rwfromkansas]

Up until a few hours ago, I was with you. Then, my jaw dropped at how WEAK a resolution Britain is proposing. It is not even remotely tough....not even remotely. It is something that FRANCE would love. We are the the ones that are caving and being made to look bad when we propose this tomorrow, not the U.N. since they will go along and guess what, so will Iraq (it was reported earlier on the radio that Iraq is having a dance about this resolution...they love it!) That will spell the end of any of Bush's agenda in getting rid of Saddam.

Sorry, but if Bush doesn't say screw the UN tomorrow, he will have lost some support from me.

[ErnBatavia]

There was one world leader sitting in the audience when Bush delivered his post 9/11 speech, that was Tony Blair.

You're right, Luis....a trip to London is in order; mach schnell!

[clintonh8r]

It will also spell the end of any realistic hope for re-election. A great opportunity, squandered.

[hchutch]

Michael Ledeen wrote an interesting article (link below). Taking that into account, the French antics seem to make sense. He seems to want Tony Blair neutralized or out as Prime Minister.

If Chirac wants Blair out of the way, then I think we need to make sure that does NOT happen.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/861106/posts

[clintonh8r]

...and the best way to do that would be to let him off the hook. That way, he's disassociated from us on this issue, and we have much more latitude in how we go after Iraq.