Posted on 01/01/2003 7:09:59 PM PST by rs79bm
A RESHUFFLE of the United Nations security council has thrown into doubt hopes that the US president, George Bush, would continue to use the UN as the primary means of disarming Saddam Hussein. In a major shift of power within the UN hierarchy, Germany - one of the leading opponents of military action against Iraq - was handed one of the ten non-permanent seats on the Security Council.
The accession of Germany will substantially diminish the prospect of the US achieving unanimous UN approval for military action against Iraq should Saddam continue to defy the demands of UN resolution 1441 to disarm his nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal. The chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, clinched election victory last year on the back of an anti-American campaign and has ruled out committing German troops to any military action.
However, the countrys ambassador to London insisted Berlin would not use its two-year tenure on the Security Council as a platform from which to lead opposition to war. Thomas Matussek said Germany would focus its efforts on securing a "co-operative" solution which preserved global peace and stability.
"As far as the UN is concerned, we will be very responsible and engaged in trying to secure world peace and international security, but we will concentrate on co-operative efforts to conflict resolution and we want to further develop conflict prevention strategy and post-conflict strategy. In an apparent softening of Germanys stance, Mr Schröder used his New Year message to the say that sometimes force is necessary.
"We Germans know from our own experience that dictators sometimes can only be stopped with force," Mr Schröder said. The New York Times reported a full US army division had been dispatched to Kuwait - the largest deployment of ground troops in the state since the 1991 Gulf war.
One of the Third Infantry Divisions three combat brigades, about 4,000 soldiers, has been training in the Kuwaiti desert since September, but the unit has been told to send the rest of the more than 15,000 combat troops to join the soldiers in Kuwait, it was reported. Both Tony Blair and Mr Bush used their New Year messages to underline their resolve to use military action should Saddam continue to flout the will of the United Nations.
"The choice is Saddams," Mr Blair said. "No-one wants a military confrontation with Iraq, but Iraq must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction. By going down the UN route, the international community has given Saddam the chance for peaceful disarmament. If he does not seize it, he will have to be disarmed by force."
In his message President Bush suggested the greatest danger to the American economy was the threat of an attack from Iraq. "An attack from Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy. "Our economy is strong, its resilient, weve got to continue to make it strong and resilient. This economy cannot afford to stand an attack," he said.
But Lord Healey, the former Labour chancellor, warned of "disastrous consequences" should Mr Bush ignore Mr Blairs advice and take unilateral action against Iraq. Claiming that we could not remember such an "inadequate" US president, Lord Healey said: "If he [Bush] does attack Iraq, the disastrous consequences for the American economy and the American policy would be unprecedented." The first deployment of a full US division to the Gulf area marked a significant escalation in the US military build-up.
US and British aircraft running patrols in the southern "no-fly" zone in Iraq yesterday struck a military defence radar system, a spokesman said.
How are these "handed" out?
That's it. We've gone too far. Now Lord Healey's threatening us.
Germany will more likely be drooling over the opportunity to support us at the UN rather than at home, though.
None of this means anything, except at the margins.
Yeah, for the U.N.
Face it, the UN, their nada, zilch, zip. I hope they try to interfere with our plans...Maybe more Americans will realize why the U.S. needs to ditch the U.N. and all of it's appeasments..
You mean like at The Scotsman. Plus, I should imagine, The Guardian.
Then, squarely at the margin, there is the New York Times...
But, I have to admit, your take on my comments is equally true.
Nice profile. I'm typing now reclined with my 8-week-old son asleep on my chest. We named him Rush. If he turns out to be liberal, he can claim I'm a fan of the band.
Yes, but absolutely none of the things that could go wrong involve the UN one bit. The UN is meaningless.
If Europe wants to form a "EURO Union" fine. Then all the members of that Union get only ONE vote in the U.N.
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.