Posted on 03/12/2003 9:25:28 PM PST by knak
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Despite U.S. insistence on a U.N. vote on Friday, new British proposals could push any decision on a resolution authorizing war with Iraq past that date, Security Council diplomats said.
After an extraordinarily chaotic day of diplomatic maneuvering on Wednesday, Britain, with only provisional backing from the United States, circulated six tests to Security Council members that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had to fulfill to avoid war.
Should undecided nations agree to the proposals, British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock was reported to have told council members his country would not hold them to a Friday vote, according to participants in the meeting.
Initially, the six undecided members -- Chile, Pakistan, Mexico, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon -- greeted the British proposals warmly, Greenstock told reporters.
But France and Russia, who have veto power, as well as Germany, viewed Britain's last-ditch effort to save the resolution with skepticism.
"I got an immediate warm response from those six members of the council," Greenstock said. "If this works it is only way through. Unless you use this repair job, the hole in the ship will sink the ship."
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Washington was "commending" the British proposal to the Security Council but emphasized repeatedly that the U.S.-British-Spanish resolution that would give Saddam a March 17 ultimatum was the only formal resolution before the council.
"VERY, VERY MODEST EXTENSION"
But he said Washington could accept a "very, very modest extension" of the March 17 deadline. Diplomats said this could be March 21, or possibly March 24.
"Before we embrace it in its entirety, we want to see how other council members feel about it," Negroponte said. "If we find it unfruitful to pursue, we are not going to pursue it."
German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger immediately asked why the proposal was presented only by Britain and not the United States or Spain, saying members had to be certain all the resolutions' sponsors were behind it.
He said he found it positive the British were trying to bridge the gap. But he said, "You can only put down a number of benchmarks if they can be fulfilled," adding that the March 17 deadline or even a few days was not long enough.
Earlier on Wednesday, a senior U.S. official said the United States had positive responses from three African members of the Security Council -- Angola, Cameroon and Guinea -- which had previously been uncommitted. But another U.S. official said the Guinean president seemed to have changed his mind.
"I wouldn't deny that we are making progress but I don't want to mislead you into thinking that we've got it in the bag," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said."
If confirmed, that would bring support for the war resolution in the 15-member Security Council up to seven, two short of the nine votes needed for passage. A veto from France, Russia or China, all of which are on record as opposing the resolution, would still kill it.
Definitely in favor of the resolution were the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. Against were Russia, China, France, Germany and Syria.
President Bush has vowed to go to war with or without U.N. backing and there are around 250,000 U.S. and British troops poised to invade Iraq.
However, abandoning attempts to get the approval of the world body would carry a heavy price, especially for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose political future could be at stake.
The new British proposals included requiring Saddam to address his nation on Iraqi television and confess he had in the past tried to hide weapons of mass destruction but had made a strategic decision to give them up.
BUSH 'WENT EXTRA MILE'
With a vote expected by the end of the week, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "We are indeed in the final stages of diplomacy and in these final stages the President
(Bush) has gone the extra mile.
"That extra mile will come to an end and the time for diplomacy will come to an end. And the only question that will remain is: 'Has Saddam Hussein disarmed?,"' he said.
In another sign of the intense diplomatic pressure Washington was bringing to bear, the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, warned Moscow to think twice and "carefully weigh all the consequences," before using its U.N. veto.
U.S. officials said there was still a chance Russia and China would abstain, but France was seen as a definite 'no' vote. However, that outcome would allow Washington to argue that it had international legitimacy and that France was the country defying the world community.
Diplomats thought the list of British conditions would be next to impossible for Saddam to accept without fatally weakening the basis of his power.
They included demands that Iraq should allow 30 of its scientists to be interviewed outside the country; surrender stocks of anthrax and other biological and chemical agents or produce documents to prove they were destroyed; destroy banned missiles; account for unmanned aerial vehicles, and promise to hand over all mobile biological weapons laboratories for destruction.
If this happens, President Bush can kiss a second term goodbye! After all the talk about ousting Saddam, think what the President will look like. This MUST NO HAPPEN!!!
Not necessarily. The day of the vote will not necessarily determine the day of the roll. I think the roll date has already been determined. We will go with or with out the UN, Britian, Turkey or anything else. There is no particular downside to carrying on with the UN for awhile. Maybe we could get support. If not, so what. As this is going on, things are deteriorating for Saddam. His troops are in contact, some even face to face, with ours and slowly peeling away. No doubt spec ops are all over the place and preping. Time is still on our side for a few more weeks and Bush knows it. The rest is for show and a diversion.
What MUST NOT HAPPEN is leaving SODAmn Insane in power after all the troop buildup and the tough talk. LET GET TO THIS MR. PRESIDENT!!
AGREE!! If he doesn't, I hope he has a DAMN GOOD reason! He has a LOT riding on the outcome of this conflict. It will very probably cost him his second term if he makes the wrong move now. I mean he has sent 300,000 odd troops to the Middle East and if he brings them home empty handed, I can hear the press now. They will have a field day with banner headlines: BUSH BLINKED!
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.