OUT!! DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 09/29/2002 12:50:10 PM PDT by Torie
Three big powers tell US it's wrong on Iraq
By Caroline Overington, Herald Correspondent in New York and agencies
September 30 2002
The United States was last night considering the implications of leading an attack on Iraq without the support of Russia, France and China, after all three rejected a US draft plan for dealing with President Saddam Hussein.
The US revealed at the weekend that it wanted to give the Iraqi leader 30 days to open his borders to weapons inspectors under new, strict conditions, or face a military strike.
The new conditions, which were quickly rejected by Baghdad, would include allowing weapons inspectors unobstructed access to factories, military bases and Saddam's presidential palaces.
The US wants the United Nations Security Council to adopt its plan as a binding resolution, but Russia, France and China, three of the council's five permanent members, have already said they do not support it.
Russia's Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, emerged from 90 minutes of talks with US diplomats to re-state Moscow's opposition to a military strike, telling reporters the UN should accept Iraq's offer to allow weapons inspectors to return before making threats.
advertisement
advertisement
"UN weapons inspectors should return to Iraq as quickly as possible," he said. "The necessary conditions for this exist."
France also appeared unmoved by US pressure, with a spokeswoman for President Jacques Chirac saying weapons inspectors should return to Iraq before threats were made because of "the seriousness of the decisions to be taken and the consequences".
The Chinese Premier, Zhu Rongji, said China had "respect for Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity".
"If the weapons inspections do not take place, if we do not have clear proof and if we do not have the authorisation of the Security Council, we cannot launch a military attack on Iraq," he said.
Washington's lone supporter among permanent members of the council is Britain. In London, the Defence Ministry said it was preparing to add 4000 troops to the 60,000-strong US force already in the Gulf region.
President George Bush used his weekly radio address on Saturday to signal a willingness to proceed without the support of all members of the Security Council, saying: "The Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced."
The US and Britain sent senior diplomats to Moscow, Paris and Beijing over the weekend in an effort to win support for their campaign, but met strong resistance from Russia and France, both of which have historic friendships with Iraq.
A US undersecretary of state, Marc Grossman, who has visited Moscow and Paris with the political director of Britain's Foreign Office, Peter Ricketts, said all nations appeared to agree that dealing with Iraq was "a challenge".
US and British diplomats are using two main arguments: first, that Saddam has obstructed the work of weapons inspectors so many times that the threat of force is necessary to make him comply this time; and second, that Iraqis support the invasion.
This latter point is the more contentious. The US is using diplomats who have travelled widely in Iraq to make the case that the people of that country, and in particular its women, want a change of regime as much as Washington does, and would welcome a US-led strike in the same way as citizens of Afghanistan did.
No, but I am aware at how skittish the administration gets when dealing with China, or have we already forgotten the Orion incident already? Incidentally, did we ever get our plane back?
Anyone that opposes the above resolution is an aider and abetter of a sociopath intent on trying to gain time to achieve a splashy and catastrophic final exit. I really believe that is Saddam's goal, and the legacy he is intent on leaving us.
Iraq defiantly rejected a U.S.-British plan Saturday for the United Nations to force President Saddam Hussein to disarm and open his palaces for weapons searches, warning the Baghdad would stage a fierce defense if the allies attacked.You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists!
Iraq Rejects Disarmament Plan
Nam Vet
Sheesh, you'd think these pitiful countries would understand the cold, hard logic of our utter superiority by now.
No, but I heard today that his 12 palaces occupy a total of 11 square miles. That's quite a bit of space.
George Will said that the way to get the allies to go along is to just go.
And we're already doing that, with the increased bombings in the no-fly zone, positioning troops.
This war has started, and it will become more evident as time goes on.
Russia wants the $40B Iraq owes to them.
China wants a free (or more free) hand to deal with Taiwan and their "economic zone".
France wants to keep making money from Iraqi oil and to needle the US.
I think we can give Russia what they want - after an Iraqi occupation, a % of the Iraqi oil sales go to pay off Russia.
France will continue to make money after Iraq is occupied. They will continue to needle us, also.
China is the more problematic issue. We can make them promises...but at what cost?
So, I am sure the State dept. will try to get them all to agree. There is a time frame. If they don't - then screw 'em, the US goes it alone and the UN becomes the League of Nations. They don't want that to happen as the Security Council gives them a forum. So there is pressure on them, also.
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.