Posted on 03/08/2003 7:47:00 PM PST by areafiftyone
SADDAM Hussein and his family are to be given 72 hours on Tuesday to accept an offer of exile, while 50 of Iraq's top military brass will be offered an amnesty in return for full co-operation with the United Nations in a secret plan to be tabled at its New York headquarters. The highly sensitive proposal was tabled by Pakistan during a closed-door meeting of the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council on Friday and was brokered by Saudi Arabia, the Vatican and moderate Arab states. Failure by Saddam to agree to the plan would clear the way for war.
If the proposal, understood to be in the form of a short paragraph, becomes part of a second resolution and is adopted by the Security Council, the UN would oversee the establishment of a post-Saddam government and the UN, not the US, would take stewardship of Iraq's oilfields.
The Iraqi generals and top ranking officers would have to co-operate fully with UN inspectors to oversee the total elimination of any weapons of mass destruction.
Pope John Paul II has dispatched his emissaries to meet all the key parties during the past two weeks. His special envoy and per manent observer at the UN, Archbishop Renato Rafaele Martino, has been discussing the proposal with all the Security Council members.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a former Papal Nuncio, met with President George W Bush, while Cardinal Angelo Sodano has met with Tony Blair. Cardinal Roger Etchegaray met with Saddam in Baghdad and discussed the subject of exile, which he said Saddam did not rule out.
American sources have confirmed that the US and Jordan have recently discussed the prospect of using the UN to offer a formal exile and amnesty package to Saddam and his inner circle.
Last month, Saddam rejected informal pleas to choose exile over war. But the US is aware that one of the attractions of an amendment that extends the offer to his family and military leaders is the likelihood it may trigger a coup, leading to his assassination by a member of his inner circle.
It is thought that Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusay, would push for a safe passage out rather than face a cataclysmic end in a Baghdad bunker. 'Uday might be the first to shoot his father if he refused an amnesty,' one senior Jordan official is quoted as saying.
The proposed amendment is still at a low rung on the UN procedural ladder but the non-permanent members believe it represents a last best chance to avert a war. But, from the Security Council's point of view, it offers a compromise that would allow its members to unite and vote for a second resolution.
UN sources have also indicated that a second resolution on Tuesday with the March 17 ultimatum -- incorporating an offer of exile -- would provide an attractive compromise that would let the French to come on board without 'losing face' or appearing to have capitulated to the US.
Also the most smirk-provoking names.
(Numbers 6 and 7 in righthand column).
Pres. Bush seems to be working very hard at targeting the UN, showing its irrelevancy to the US. I think its entirely possible that he knows a lot we don't about the Clintons and their plans. The president has refused to criticize them, taking the high road, also realizing that it will just alienate people. But behind the scenes, I believe he is working hard to take care of their platform. Go, President Bush!
The UN know that GWB is not bluffing or at least the believe he is not bluffing and that's what it's all about, like a good game of poker
As Sun Tzu states, give your enemy a way out, even at the last minute. We do not really want one allied soldier killed in the war if it can be avoided.
However the last thing I would like to see is the UN coming out as if they, the French and Germans stood up to the US and her allies and came out with the best deal.
The UN is corrupt and needs to be disbanded, they are all on Fat Cat salaries even when they are in the poorest countries of the world, driving around in 4 wheel drives, eating in the best restaurants etc. like they own the countries they are in.
Only the threat of force has brought us to this point so quickly, nothing else, and only in a matter of months.
With the UN running the show it would go on for another 11 years and who would take responsiblity for the thousands of deaths at the hands of the Iraqi state, or the possible WMD being given to any and all terrorists organisations, certainlty not the UN or the French or Germans
That having been said, those of you who have 3/14/2003-3/17/2003 in your pools, hang onto your tickets.
A similar deal got Idi Amin out of Ethiopia a while back. At least Sadaam didn't eat the people who annoyed him
"Iraq pays for UNMOVIC through oil sales via an escrow account (0.8% of oil revenues).
This allows financial control over Iraqi assets for UNMOVIC, and thus gives the United Nations another set of dentures in its dealings with Iraq.
The money from Iraqís oil sales also enables UNMOVIC to employ all of its staff, inspectors and technical experts on United Nations contracts (one-year or sixmonth duration). In so doing, 1284 deals with one of the main criticisms of UNSCOM, that staff were paid for by their governments and thus may have felt beholden to their individual governments rather than to the United Nations. This criticism was refuted by many involved in UNSCOM but the worry still persisted.
Directly employing UNSCOM staff allows the United Nations to impose its rules on employee loyalty and significantly Article 100 of the United Nations Charter, which instructs staff not to seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority and charges Member States not to seek to influence staff in the discharge of their responsibilities."
If the US liberates Iraq, the funding for UNMOVIC goes away, and so does the lifestyles of all involved. They have to go back to begging for money. That is why they do not want the situation changed. They will do everything in their power to maintain the status quo. If the sanctions are lifted as Iraq is now asking for, the same thing occurs. So they will fight for that not to happen too.
Follow the money!!
As another Freeper explained the other day, the verb "table" has opposite meanings in the U.S. and England. Over there, to "table" a proposal means to put it forth, as in "put it on the table". Here, "table" means to withdraw. You have to check the source of the article to figure out which one applies. The Herald is in England.
Didn't the Vatican do the same thing for the Nazis? They are supposed to have ferreted numerous Nazi criminals out to safe haven to protect them from the big bad Allies.
Becki
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.