U.S. resolution on Iraq may not go to UN vote

The International Herald Tribune ^ | March 12, 2003 | Timothy L. O'Brien / The New York Times

[MeekOneGOP]

U.S. resolution on Iraq may not go to UN vote

Timothy L. O'Brien The New York Times
Thursday, March 13, 2003

French veto feared, Spanish official says

 

UNITED NATIONS, New York A United States-led draft resolution to set the stage for a military confrontation with Iraq may not be put to a vote before the United Nations Security Council because of a French threat to veto the measure, Spain's foreign minister told reporters in Madrid on Wednesday.

"Clearly, not putting it to a vote is a possibility which is being considered," said Ana Palacio, the foreign minister. "We are considering it, above all in view of the already absolute and emphatic affirmation by France of a veto, because a veto is undoubtedly something which has consequences for the United Nations system."

A Foreign Ministry spokesman later played down Palacio's remarks, saying that she "was only referring to a hypothetical situation in the sense that there is a very distant possibility that a second resolution might not be presented." The Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, echoed those remarks in a speech to Parliament as his government sought to distance itself from Palacio's comments. "I will not resign myself to the United Nations Security Council showing itself to be incapable of complying with resolutions it was capable of passing unanimously," Reuters quoted him as saying. "We are working so that the Security Council maintains its respect, its credibility and that it be a guarantor for peace and world security." Nonetheless, Spain is a sponsor of the draft resolution, along with Britain and the United States, and Palacio's comments add a new level of uncertainty to the measure's chances of passing muster within the Security Council. The draft resolution, which finds Iraq in breach of UN requirements that it disarm, requires approval from nine of the Security Council's 15 members to pass. All five of the council's permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States can independently veto a resolution by voting against it.

The draft resolution was expected to be put to a vote Tuesday, but that was cancelled after the United States realized it did not have the necessary votes to secure its passage. Although there was talk here Wednesday that the measure might be voted upon Thursday, diplomats say that it is likely to be Friday at the earliest before votes are taken. The White House has insisted it wants a vote this week, despite the fact that France and Russia have said they will veto it, and China may do so as well.

Palacio made her comments after returning from a diplomatic trip to Paris where she met with the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin. The French official has been one of the most outspoken critics of the use of force in Iraq and has repeatedly called for continued weapons inspections by UN teams.

UN delegates have been working furiously to revise the draft resolution's language in order to make it palatable to all sides in the Iraq debate. While the British originally proposed March 17 as a deadline for Baghdad to disarm, Britain and the United States have said they would be willing to extend that deadline a few days. Britain has proposed a set of six guidelines to measure Iraqi compliance with disarmament mandates, but those guidelines still have not been included in a revised version of the draft resolution.

Lobbying and consultations were carried out at the highest levels here on Wednesday. The UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, lined up dual meetings with Hans Blix, the influential head of the UN inspection teams scouring Iraq for information on Baghdad's chemical and biological weapons programs, and with Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador.

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, reaffirmed WednesdayPresident George W. Bush's desire for a quick resolution to the debate. "The president has given diplomacy a certain amount of time," he said. "He will not give it forever."

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune

[EternalVigilance]

"There is a time to every purpose under heaven..."

Saddam's time is coming, and very soon...

[MeekOneGOP]

It surely is ! . . .

[teletech]

Many of us here on FR said months ago we would live to regret the day we ever went to the UN over Iraq. Never did I realize that it would be a country such as France that would stab us in the back. We are now at the point where WE are gong to have to make a decision. Do we go WITHOUT the resolution or continue to play musical chairs at the UN? I say, GO and do it N O W Mr. President! We may have ALREADY waited to long!

[MeekOneGOP]

"Titanium backbone' huh? You know, there are folks that have made careers of underestimating President Bush. I trust in Team Bush. When the time is right, the "Let's Roll" call will be made ! . . .

[Scott from the Left Coast]

I should clarify: I said that was the decision that required the famous TB -- I didn't mean to imply that Bush did not have it.

[EarlyBird]

I say that there will be a vote.

I agree. I think putting out the word that the resolution might not be submitted was another Bush bluff.

The Angolas and Chiles of the world need the UN more than anyone and they are relishing their newly important roles. Thier participation in this debate is their long-awaited invitation to the world stage. Without the resolution, they suddenly could see all of the offered "carrots" for cooperation disappear, and all of the "sticks" begin to loom much larger.

Plus, without the vote, they wouldn't be in the limelight anymore and they would have to slither back under their African and Latin American rocks and to the obscurity where they belong -- without accomplishing a damned thing.

They want this vote almost as badly as Bush, and Bush knows it.

[MeekOneGOP]

Ah. Understood. Thanks.

[Smedley]

I say that there will be a vote.

If we have 9 votes assured, here will be a vote.

[the_doc]

I think we will have a vote no matter what. Our POTUS has said we will.

[Risa]

Bigg Red...

"Too late for that -- by about 30 years. "

Yes, a failed institution - and a waste of time. Courting its approval was a mistake, but the consequences of having done so provide a good lesson for the future.

risa

[LaGrone]

Ollie said the troops are getting antsy in Kuwait. I don't blame them. TIME TO ROLL WITH THE WAR MACHINE. NOW.

The diplomats can argue about it later.

[Empireoftheatom48]

Thanks I needed that!!

[Spruce]

The administration is executing, to the letter, Public Law 107-243: AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

    The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the 
President to--
            (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security 
        Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq 
        and encourages him in those efforts; and
            (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security 
        Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, 
        evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies 
        with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed 
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and 
appropriate in order to--
            (1) defend the national security of the United States 
        against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
            (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
        resolutions regarding Iraq.

All of the SC members knew this day would come. Their vote on the last resolution is moot regarding whether Public Law 107-243 is executed.

The inexplicable behavior of France is what this vote is about.

[Optimist]

(2) obtain pursue prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq the Security Council abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

[Risa]

"The problem is the longer we wait, the more these same articles get posted and the more we have to listen to the anti-war crowd."


I see the anti-war crowd as a small portion of our populace; mouthy rabble-rousers, looking for a cause--who get a lot of attention from a media that lean a bit too far to the left for my tastes.

I suspect that the vast majority of americans are supportive of Bush and the war on Saddam - but you won't see them in the streets with banners, because what are we going to do - go out and march for war? No - no one is going to go out there and shout WE WANT WAR. So we sit quietly at home, defending from behind the scenes our President's war and our troops, rather than taking a stand in the streets of America.

I hope to see a strong showing at the Liberty rallies scheduled around the country for the week-end of March 22-23; yet, I fear many will stay at home for fear of being cast as hegemonic war-mongers by the media.

risa

[KaiserofKrunch]

I'm not even from Texas, and I love Texas! It's sent many great Americans to fight for our country.

[Risa]

>>The inexplicable behavior of France is what this vote is about.<<

France's behavior does not seem inexplicable to me. I wonder who truly believed that France would show support for the United States in this effort?

As the world's only superpower, it would seem that our interests would never coincide with those of a weak little nation like France-- (and weak little France is more afraid of President Bush and the huge number of Arabs living in France, than it is of Saddam, who would not target France, precisely because it is an inconsequential, little place with no world influence or power).

It would seem suicidal to throw our fate in with a country like France (or Mexico, for that matter, who is miffed because they've not been successful at using the United States to absorb its enormous population overflow).

That being said, I have faith in George Bush and his team to do what is in the best interests of our nation no matter what the outcome of the UNSC fiasco.



risa

[Spruce]

I do not believe we are witnessing a fiasco. I believe we are witness to events larger than the fall of communism.

[MeekOneGOP]

I love Texas too ! Thanks for your nice comment.

Yesterday, I had lunch with another FReeper, her Mom and the FReepers son. I told them about a good friend of mine and his wife who had a daughter. The couple had met in Florida in college and settled in Texas with jobs here. The daughter was born in Texas. One afternoon we were together in their car and the daughter mentioned being born in Texas. I told Nikki, the daughter, 'tell them, Nikki: there are ONLY TWO types of people in this world - those that are from Texas and those that wish they were' . . .

They all got a kick outta that, LOL !

[KaiserofKrunch]

I made a big sacrifice for Texas; I donated my favorite aunt! She lives in Trophy Club, and works for a botanical institute near Dallas. She and her husband dearly love it.