Posted on 03/16/2003 11:55:09 PM PST by Timesink
Mar 17, 2003 By Edith M. Lederer and Dafna Linzer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - France called for an emergency U.N. ministerial meeting Tuesday to set a timetable for Iraq's peaceful disarmament, ignoring a Monday deadline set by the United States and three allies for the United Nations to authorize war against Baghdad. U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix was also ignoring the threat of a possibly imminent war for the moment and preparing to give the Security Council a 30-page report Monday listing about a dozen key remaining disarmament tasks that Iraq should complete in the coming months. But 12 years after a U.S.-led coalition routed Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and 4 1/2 months after the Security Council gave Saddam a final opportunity to disarm, a showdown loomed in the 15-member council over the U.S. demand for U.N. backing to attack Iraq again. It appeared almost certain that a U.S.-led war would have to go ahead without U.N. authorization because the Security Council remains bitterly divided and no acceptable compromise is on the table. President Bush made it clear after a summit in the Azores Sunday with allies Britain, Spain and Portugal that diplomatic efforts would end by Monday night, but he did not make clear what the next steps would be. Late Sunday evening, the Security Council scheduled closed consultations on Iraq at 10 a.m. EST Monday to discuss the resolution sponsored by the United States, Britain and Spain setting an ultimatum for Iraq to rid itself of weapons on mass destruction within days or face war. The current resolution would set the deadline for Monday, but U.S. officials said that could be extended briefly. Washington could call for a vote, but the resolution doesn't have the support of a majority of the 15 council members and faces a threatened veto by France, and possibly Russia. At the summit, the cosponsors didn't offer any new "carrots" to try to win over opponents, and no major shifts in the positions of council members were expected. The other option would be to abandon the resolution, which diplomats say might be the smarter thing to do from a legal point of view. If the resolution is defeated, an attack against Iraq would violate international law. But if there is no vote, the legal status of a war falls into a gray area where the United States and Britain would likely claim they already have authority to attack under previous U.N. resolutions - and other council nations would argue that they don't. Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday that British diplomats would work through the night to try to convince France to reverse course. Asked what would happen if Paris continues to threaten a veto, Blair appeared pessimistic about the chances of avoiding military action. "It's very difficult to see how you can change that position," he told reporters during his flight home from the Azores. French diplomats at the United Nations said the country's position had not changed, and it remains on the same track - in favor of continued inspections because they are working and opposed to any U.N. resolution authorizing military force. For that reason, France pressed for a Security Council meeting at 3 p.m. EST Monday to discuss a joint declaration by France, Russia and Germany calling for foreign ministers from the 15 council nations to meet Tuesday to discuss Blix's key remaining disarmament tasks and agree on a "realistic" timetable for Saddam to disarm. The declaration, released Saturday, said there was no justification for a war on Iraq and that U.N. weapons inspections were working. French President Jacques Chirac said Sunday he was willing to accept a one-month or two-month deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors. But U.S. officials dismissed the idea as a nonstarter and Germany opposed it, saying it wanted no ultimatum. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said he would continue to fight for peaceful disarmament. "I think it is always worth it - even in the last minute - to push for peace and to fight for a peaceful disarmament," Schroeder told German television ZDF late Sunday. Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed the French proposal, saying "it's difficult to take the French seriously." After listening to the news conference in the Azores, Blix described the situation as "very threatening," but he made no plans to evacuate his weapons inspectors in Baghdad, saying he was watching the situation "hour by hour." Instead, he said he would push forward with his work program and a list of key remaining disarmament tasks. According to U.N. officials familiar with working drafts of Blix's report, it envisions several more months of inspections, followed by a transition period to long-term monitoring of Iraq's weapons programs. With the prospect of military action looming, Blix said he and Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector, needed more information on what they could accomplish in Baghdad if they accept an invitation to visit Iraq. "I don't exclude it but there are many other things that are happening in the world. ... We need a little more clarity," Blix said. Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri said the invitation was aimed at fostering more cooperation with inspectors. But U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell doubted such a trip could produce results. Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition," Powell said the remaining tasks Blix planned to identify were issues the "Iraqis could have resolved any time over the past five, 10, 12 years, and they have not. That's the problem." AP-ES-03-17-03 0227ESTFrance Calls Emergency U.N. Meeting on Iraq's Peaceful Disarmament, Ignoring U.S. Deadline
Associated Press Writers
On the other hand:
Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed the French proposal, saying "it's difficult to take the French seriously."
Classic!
Hmmmmm. Realistic. Well, let's see. Twelve years wasn't enough. Maybe we should give Saddam twenty-four years this time?
Yesterday, Bush said it was he who asked for the second resolution (he said this to deflect heat away from Blair), but he also said that France has already said it would veto a resolution that had teeth, so in effect the vote has already been taken. There is no need to insist on an actual vote when one member has already showed its intent to use the veto.
It'll be an interesting day, but don't expect a "second" resolution or vote. Everyone will pick sides, and France has been exposed (as has the UN). Larger mission accomplished, and the mission of Iraq is all but in full swing.
zook wrote: I was just thinking that I'd like to have a link to that punk from "The Simpsons" who's always singing "Ha, ha!" I'd like to play it every time I hear Blix or any French guy speak.
Or to paraphrase Homer, "Can't talk, busy...whomping the hell out of the Republican Guard."
Well, I believe these events qualify as such. What a great (and scary) time it is to be a news junkie.
Stated as fact... AP sucks.
The assertion does not even make logical sense. Why would the defeat of another resolution cause a subsequent attack to violate international law?
The last resolution providing for "serious consequences" is sufficient. Let's Roll!
Says who? Edith M. Lederer?
International law, if it means anything, can be defined in one of three ways. 1) It's a matter of sovereignty. He who has the power makes the rules. 2) It's a matter of consensus. It's international law if everyone agrees that it is. 3) It's a matter of Natural Law. This is the correct answer according to traditional belief, but the problem is that very few people in positions of authority believe in natural law any longer.
So. We're back to power and consensus. The U.S. has the power, and it doesn't consent to have the UN tell it not to defend itself. Plus, natural law is on our side as well, because natural law includes the rights of self defense and just war against an aggressor.
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.