Posted on 03/12/2003 6:59:49 AM PST by maquiladora
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration believes that it is one vote shy of having nine of 15 votes needed on a U.N. Security Council resolution that sets a Monday deadline for Iraqi compliance, a senior U.S. State Department official said, and officials are focusing diplomatic energies on Mexico and Chile.
President Bush has spent much of the last week on the telephone, lobbying council members to support the resolution.
"Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair are attempting to do whatever it takes to get the Latins to commit," the official told CNN's Andrea Koppel.
Blair told members of the House of Commons on Wednesday that the council was considering a series of benchmarks that Iraq would have to meet to prove it was disarming -- a step that Chile and Mexico previously suggested.
The State Department official also said the United States is confident it has the support of the three African members of the Security Council -- Cameroon, Guinea and Angola -- despite a visit this week by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to secure their opposition to the resolution.
In addition, U.S. and Pakistani officials said Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf can be counted on for his support when a vote happens this week.
That leaves Mexico and Chile as holdouts, the State Department official said. To secure these votes, the United States, Great Britain and Spain have teamed up to work all the angles. On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell held a three-way conference call with his allied counterparts as they coordinated strategies.
Nevertheless, Russia and France have threatened to veto the resolution. Nine council votes are needed to pass the resolution, but a veto by any of the five permanent members would defeat it. Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States are permanent members.
I believe they are threatening them with a reduction in Japanese financial assistance.
It might not destroy the U.N., but it definitely will end France's delusions of grandeur.
The only think that might be better is if France actually caved at the end. The short term humiliation for France would be excruciating. They might do that anyway because at least it would preserve the only thing (their U.N. veto) that gives France any weight on the international stage.
If it were down to just getting one of two (Chile or Mexico) that would not be such a high hurdle that Britain would still be attempting such significant compromises as setting out "benchmarks" (some of the benchmarks they are proposing are so ludicrous that it is breathtaking -- Saddam coming on TV to say that he will get rid of all WMD -- please. What purpose would a stupid and pointless stunt like that have?).
Blair has gone wacky, fearing that his position is endangered. If he keeps going on like this he's going to morph into another euro-socialist right before our eyes. I doubt he'd be so wacky if we were just down to convincing either Chile or Mexico.
Take a look at his record/opinions on issues other than Iraq and you'll see.
As for the accuracy of this report, well, it's quite fresh, only broke about an hour or so ago, whereas the talk of a deadline extension has been something that was talked about and discussed over the past few days.
If the U.N. adopts "benchmarks", then it must also adopt a means of determining whether they are met or not, or whether being "partially met" means that maybe a little more time might allow them to be better met.
Benchmarks are no different in the U.N. than further resolutions or inspection reports -- it's all left to the interpretation of the body.
Because that is the U.N. process -- the whole point of its being (in its own eyes) anyway: to prevent war through negotiation.
Benchmarks are just another hurdle for the U.S. to pass, they are not a hurdle meant to trip Saddam, they are designed to give more room for manuever to those opposing attacking Iraq.
This needs to come out of the U.N. process -- not be immersed deeper in it. That is what is so encouraging about Bush's speech setting out an ultimatum directly from him to Saddam -- it takes the whole issue out of the U.N. process.
"Japan ups diplomatic pressure on Mexico to support US-backed war resolution Tuesday,March11,2003,12:13 PM Tokyo-AP -- Japan is pressuring Mexico to back a U-S resolution in the U-N Security Council.
Japan's prime minister is urging Mexican President Vicente Fox to adopt a March 17th ultimatum for Iraq to disarm or face war. He says international divisions put the U-N's authority at stake. Japan is not currently a member of the Security Council, but is joining the intense lobbying behind the scenes. The Asian nation declared its support for the resolution on Saturday. In the past 24 hours, phone calls went out from Tokyo to undecided Pakistan, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Cameroon."
Wimp. Fair-weather fan. Get your chin up!
Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair are attempting to do whatever it takes to get the Latins to commit,"
I have an off-topic, but serious question -
How did Spanish-speaking people get the name “latins”?
No. It was a French power play - and they are going to lose.
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.