UN plan to give Saddam 72 hours to leave Baghdad

Sunday Herald ^ | 3/8/03

[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.

[FRgal4u]

the pakis are working with the US on multiple fronts...

this could well be another behind the scenes deal GWB cut with the paki govn. (and the Saudis)..

I truly believe this president CARES a lot about our brave men and women in uniform, and he knows how ugly this war could get if Saddam uses his wmd[s]..

imagine if this proposal was tabled by the us/uk/spain..I bet the french will not buy in..

and with the middle six votes deem as critical for both sides (uk really need the second un resolution; the french wanna avoid a veto at all costs) and paki is tabling this deal...the middle six will become power brokers here...if the middle six want this passgae in the resolution, they will get that in...

and with paki as our friend, this is a backdoor way for (yet) once again, gwb plat a role to allow unity in the votes and the eventual exit of saddam (by force or by choice)...

pretty interesting indeed...

[Howlin]

After all this conflicting news today, I won't have very far to go.

[marajade]

"Tom Daschle is on his side."

All Daschle knows is that whatever Bush is for, he's against it... and don't even ask him why because his only response is "no."

[kcar]

The UN has no credibility. The idea that they would create a democracy that is pro-western is absurd. Besides, if we were planning to begin the bombing on Thursday, wouldn't this just be a further delay? These are just the worm-tongued emissaries of Sauron.

[marajade]

Interesting theory...

[geedee]

Howlin, we're talking about the UN here, so there's no reason to start using logic. ;-)

LOL. I agree. It's confusing enough without throwing logic and the UN together in the same sentence.

Now explain who is who and what is what to me again.

Okay . . . now Saudi Arabia says we can't use any of their territory for the war yet we're unloading soldiers by the thousands on their dirt and these same soldiers who aren't supposed to be there, and probably aren't in Arab-speak, are getting ready to kick ass and take names and our airplanes fly from Prince Sultan bin bani aswra who-knows-what-potentate's-name-fits-here Airport whenever we want. Right?

The Kuwaitis said they won't support us . . . yet we're, nah nix that one -- too confusing. I'll come back to it.

Okay, the Turks said no, then okay, then hold on, then no again. Right? But their parliament might vote again. Are they voting for yes or no? And which one do we want? What's the question they're voting on anyway?

Okay, Egypt says they're staying neutral but then they organize a gazillion screaming Arabs to protest against us but then they say for a bazillion dollars they'll kiss both our cheeks and blow in our ear and proclaim their enduring love for all things American. Right?

Okay, the French, nah, never mind. Pee-pee on the French.

Ditto for Germany.

Okay, now the Russkies and the Chinese say they'll veto the resolution but they can kill Chechens and Tibetans without the UN's blessing. Right? But they're . . . how can they . . . does that make sense that . . . Ahhh, to hell with it.

Just answer me this. Are we still wearing the white hats?

If so, wake me up when all this crapola's over. I've got a headache.

[FreeReign]

He's invincible, and he's reading how France, China, and Russia, will all veto anything that can hurt him. He knows he's hidden everything except a drone and a few old chemical shells. Hans Blix is on his side. Tom Daschle is on his side. He ain't gonna step down from the best gig he's ever had, just because of a few words on a UN resolution.

If the Security Council members unite and vote for a second resolution that includes exile, then he no longer has France and Russia on his side trying to prevent his removal. More importantly, he will know that a failure by him to except the deal will bring about the termination of his gig.

The only thing that will prevent him from taking this deal is if he would still fear for his life in exile.

[DontMessWithMyCountry]

the UN would oversee the establishment of a post-Saddam government and the UN, not the US, would take stewardship of Iraq's oilfields.

An outstanding solution as to how we can rid ourselves (and the world) of the Useless Nitwits: just as soon as the Iraqi people get wind of the incessant obstructions that the UN erected to prevent Americans/Brits/Australians from liberating them from that tyrannical ba*tard, the Iraqi citizens can express their 'gratitude' (and we can look the other way) to the sundry terrorist and despot sympathizers (oh, I meant to say, 'UN delegates').

[mombonn]

72 hours, 72 virgins. What to do, what to do?
signed,
saddam

[WOSG]

interesting take, you have many of these other actors trying to get in on the act on their terms.

The US was hoping to use tha natural tendency to create the bandwagon effect for our own action. Alas, France effecively stunted that effort and created a split (other members like China and Russia would have had passive resistance to our efforts if France was with us).

But I dont see how a formalized exile offer is really different from the informal exile offers out there. Saddam just aint biting, and I am sure everything is locked down too tight for a coup right now. The interesting thing is if Pakistan is out there for "regime change" they are amenable to coming onto a 'disarm or else' resolution.
JMHO (only coin flip chance of being right!).

[Dog Gone]

Saddam makes miscalculations on a grand scale.

Pull out a hat you would like me to eat if he goes into voluntary exile.

[Torie]

I doubt if Saddam wants to go into exile; he probably would prefer to leave with a bang. The upside of this proposal is that it does increase the chances for a coup.

[upchuck]

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.

Whoa, whoa! We're gonna give this to the UN? I don't like this at all. The UN has proven time after time they are totally incompetent. We're just asking for lotsa trouble if this goes down.

[al_again]

I highly doubt that Sadam would take the offer but, if he would, this would be much preferable to going to war. There are economies of scale; all of our national interest goals would be achieved and there would be no major loss of life. I pray he take this option.

[Gal.5:1]

Well, I guess he's going to France...

[Teacher317]

Sounds like the UN is trying desperately at the last second to not be irrelevant. It's a great plan, too, and would give France et al the glorious peaceful victory (and the incredibly embarrassing defeat of GWB) they so desperately want... I just don't see Saddam stepping and fetching for the French.

There are 3 ideologies vying for world domination right now: American capitalism, European socialism, and militant Islam. While the latter two would be thrilled to be rid of the first, Saddam surely isn't going to sacrifice himself for the cause.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

This is a nightmare scenario for us and Iraq. If the UN gets to set up the new govt. of Iraq that country may be WORSE off after Saddam leaves. OK maybe not worse off but in 10 years they won't be any better.

It is a little known fact that the UN has gotten more money from Iraq in the last 10 years than from the U.S. because the UN takes a cut off the top of all Iraqi oil sales through the oil for food program.

This is blatant attempt to keep the money flowing from Iraq to the UN and to get the UN's hands in total control of a country that they can use as their little lab experiment for their commie ideas and dreams.

The Iraqi poeple would be trading a single brutal dictator to a brutal committee of commie dictators.

This is terrible news if true. The U.S. should veto this themselves and tell the UN that the oil belongs to the Iraqi poeple and not some committee for one world domination with a Manahattan address.

[marajade]

"The upside of this proposal is that it does increase the chances for a coup."

Did you watch the History Channel tonight? Apparently, in 1995 the CIA had a plan to do just that and Clinton nixed it... and then threatened the CIA team leader with criminal charges? Unbelievable...

[Mentos]

Reportrix Jenifer Johnston looks kind of sultry