Bush Loses Patience With UN Haggling

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 3-13-2003 | Toby Harnden

[blam]

Bush loses patience with UN haggling

By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 13/03/2003)

The patience of the Bush administration was distinctly threadbare last night as US officials insisted they would not allow themselves to become further bogged down in a diplomatic quagmire at the United Nations.

"I just think the whole thing is a fool's chase," a senior Bush administration official told The Telegraph. "We're not going to get a resolution.

"The French and the Russians will veto. It doesn't matter what changes you make, the question is how long this is going to drag on, how much further political heat we're going to take."

Despite the initial desire to help Tony Blair by securing another UN Security Council resolution, administration aides said earlier that time was running out fast and the Prime Minister's needs could not justify any further delay.

For the first time in several weeks, there were clear differences between American and British aims at the UN.

British diplomats, scrambling to achieve another resolution come what may, were much more flexible over timing than their US counterparts. A telephone call to Mr Bush from Mr Blair yesterday afternoon was aimed at resolving these differences.

From the British point of view, Donald Rumsfeld's bombshell that Britain might not take part in military action had made the situation much worse, essentially devaluing the UK's contribution and revealing Mr Blair's bottom line publicly.

The comments reflected "the feeling that he wants to get going and there's no end in sight to these negotiations", the senior administration official said.

They came as American officials had appeared to be rejecting a proposal floated by Britain to give Iraq 10 more days to show that it was complying with disarmament demands and insisted on a vote by the weekend.

But US diplomats maintained that the search for a resolution would continue for a short time and maintained that nine "yes" votes would represent a moral victory even if France vetoed.

Some Pentagon officials believe that April 1 would be a better start date for war than March 18, when there will be a full moon.

Despite considerable reluctance from some at the White House, a resolution setting a deadline of the end of March and voted on this week could be acceptable.

Whereas public opinion in Britain has been shifting away from Mr Blair, in America polls have shown increasing frustration with the UN process.

The Bush administration's hardline stance reflects the ambivalence with which they viewed the UN from the outset, Mr Bush's political strength and the "red lines" that were laid down last month when the quest for another resolution began.

At that juncture, another senior Bush administration official said negotiations at the UN would have to be "pretty clean and pretty quick" and nothing like the haggling before the unanimous vote on resolution 1441 last November.

"We feel very strongly, as with Kosovo, that 1441 gives us the authority to act with or without a second resolution," he said. He officially identified as crucial the twin factors of Mr Bush's credibility and the momentum towards war.

Whatever the outcome this week, it is hard to imagine Mr Bush or any Republican successor returning to the UN to seek authorisation for military action in the future.

[teletech]

No more UN negotiations! LETS ROLL!!

[Timm]

Whatever the outcome this week, it is hard to imagine Mr Bush or any Republican successor returning to the UN to seek authorisation for military action in the future.

Well, never say never. A next president may find himself with six months, lots of extra money, and countless hours in his State Department to waste. Then, why not?

[PhiKapMom]

Whatever the outcome this week, it is hard to imagine Mr Bush or any Republican successor returning to the UN to seek authorisation for military action in the future.

There is so much in this article to like but the last sentence says it all for me! Put America first and forget the United Nations for good!

[kesg]

Whatever the outcome this week, it is hard to imagine Mr Bush or any Republican successor returning to the UN to seek authorisation for military action in the future.

Let's hope so! Although, strictly speaking, Bush never sought "authorization." He sought support. That's different.

[Red Dog #1]

The best thing we can do now is bring this thing to a quick end. Pictures of truck loads of WMD's and the stories of Saddams brutality are the only things that will help Blair. The longer we wait the more support he will loose.

[NetValue]

May God forgive the UN. I cannot.

[DoughtyOne]

Of the problems Bush has had to face, this is the most disconcerting. 09/11 you can deal with. You know what you have to do and you do it. Your allies support you and you take care of business. But now it's 18 months down the road and our own citizens (not a majority by any means) have forgotten 09/11, not just foreign nationals and governments.

By all rights we should pull our troops home, let Saddam develop the bomb, and use it all over Europe, refusing to either come to their aid or allow them to take Hussein out. "This is what you wanted. This is what you get."

The problem with this strategy, is that not only Iraq, but Iran, Syria, Lybia, North Korea and others will either develop the weapons, or be gifted them by China. Even if six billion people on the planet disagree, we can't let that happen. Every state that goes nuclear should be slapped own with a sledgehammer. Don't do it if you don't want to be squashed.

In effect we are saving the French and the Germans again. They are too friggen stupid to see it, but we are.

[bayareablues]

Another 3 weeks puts our servicemen at unacceptable risk. If this one is vetoed this week, let's go.

[esopman]

You are correct.

"...the more support he will LOSE."

[Maine Maid]

Agreed! An appropriated name would be OPERATION LET'S ROLL!!

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Bush loses patience with UN haggling

He should come to FR, there's a whole crowd of us here who've lost patience. He'd get plenty of commiseration on that.

[Aura Of The Blade]

I just think this whole thing is a fool's chase

LOL

[PhiKapMom]

FYI!

[solo gringo]

to hell with the UN and the French and Krouts Lets Roll.

[rs79bm]

Uh, what really did we expect from the U.N.? I mean, since when do we need to "check" with another governing body before the U.S. takes any kind of action? I think it was dumb, dumb, and dumber to go this route. Seriously, you cannot expect the U.N. to authorize war on anything. Their lives could be at stake and they would not wage war on the person with the gun. I do not know what the U.S. was expecting by going this route, thinking that Countries such as France and Germany would go along and participate. They didn't participate when their own countries were at risk. And as far as France and Germany having oil contracts and the like with Baghdad, surely the U.S. should have known this, and taken it into account before they even went to the U.N. So that shouldn't be a big surprise, either. I just think we took the wrong route on this and have paid a price for it. I simply do not know what we are waiting for. This is note to Washington:

If it takes us 6 months to get our troops in order, we are all in trouble!

And I mean that with all due respect. I just think we need to get things rolling. Hanging our troops on the line while we gaggle at the U.N. is not a good thing. G.W., of all people, should know this.

[ambrose]

By all rights we should pull our troops home, let Saddam develop the bomb, and use it all over Europe, refusing to either come to their aid or allow them to take Hussein out. "This is what you wanted. This is what you get." The problem with this strategy, is that not only Iraq, but Iran, Syria, Lybia, North Korea and others will either develop the weapons, or be gifted them by China. Even if six billion people on the planet disagree, we can't let that happen. Every state that goes nuclear should be slapped own with a sledgehammer. Don't do it if you don't want to be squashed.

Whether we like it or not, the USA is essentially the parent of wayward and petulant little children (the rest of the world).

[Fighter@heart]

AMEN Brother!! You sir have said all that needs to be said! We have waited far to long seeking "approval" from a bunch of folks that were never with us to start with. Let the U.N. crumble, let the U.S. ROLL!!

[brydic1]

I hope this is true. I don't want to find out later that US taxpayers are putting billions of dollars in the bank accounts of the african dictators whose votes we need for the UN resolution. Nor do I want to find out that far reaching immigration concessions have been given to Mexico for their vote. Sadly, I believe that is just what has happened.

[vbmoneyspender]

I'll tell you this, I hope to hell we are going to punish the Chileans and the Mexicans. Apparently acting out of spite at country's success, they weren't there when we needed them.