Replies

No, we'll give them notice to get out of dodge.

It limits the surprise some, but frankly, there's not much Iraq can do, but brace itself. We won't go in immediately after the announcement for everyone to leave.

If Iraq strikes us, everything is go.

We'd prefer for Huusein to try to start this.

Rift Over Iraq Grows

Associated Press 03/14/2003

NITED NATIONS - With time running out, the Security Council was unable to reach agreement Thursday on a U.S.-backed resolution authorizing war in Iraq. A majority of members said they couldn't or wouldn't support the measure.

Mexico, Chile and Pakistan - three countries Washington was counting on for support - said they were unable to back the resolution in its current form and were working on a counterproposal that would not immediately trigger war.

But others declared the diplomacy dead, saying there was no way the United States and Britain could muster the necessary votes they need or avoid a veto from France and possibly Russia.

"This is not going to fly," said Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov.

Chinese Ambassador Wang Yingfan suggested the two English-speaking allies withdraw the resolution they submitted together with Spain.

"To me it's clear, they just don't have the votes," he said.

France, China, Russia, Germany and several other council members oppose the resolution because it would automatically authorize force if Saddam Hussein failed to disarm by Monday. Britain had sought to alleviate those fears by transferring the ultimatum to a side paper that wouldn't be voted on.

But France saw the move as a ploy.

"We will say no to any resolution that authorizes the use of force," French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said at the end of a tense council meeting.

The United States began the week with the expectation of a vote Tuesday, but it was clear late Thursday that intensive diplomatic efforts weren't producing the support it needed.

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte didn't call for a vote today, and diplomats doubted one would be called for Saturday.

In Washington, U.S. officials said President Bush could drop the resolution in the face of a veto and fight Iraq without Security Council authorization.

Several top administration officials said a growing number of advisers believe the resolution is doomed, and they want the president to cut his losses and withdraw it. Others hold out hope for the measure.

The officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, agreed that a key is whether British Prime Minister Tony Blair wants Bush to give diplomacy another weekend.

Blair, who is facing a massive revolt inside his own party because of his pro-U.S. stand on Iraq, desperately needs U.N. authorization in order to sell a war at home.

Negroponte left the 4½-hour council meeting Thursday saying that "time is running out." In light of Britain's efforts, he said Washington was prepared to "go the extra mile as far as seeing if we can reach some kind of basis for understanding within the council."

Ambassadors said informal consultations would continue today and possibly through the weekend. But privately they held out little hope for a breakthrough. Several said they were saddened and frustrated by the divisions.

Six uncommitted nations - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan - tried Thursday to bridge the deep divide.

Just a day before, White House officials claimed that some of the six swing nations were supporting the resolution. But those countries made their positions clear Thursday.

In Santiago, Chile, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement after the council meeting ended in New York, saying: "Should a vote come tomorrow, we will not support it; we will reject it."

With France threatening to veto the resolution and the Bush administration weighing whether to abandon it, the six countries said they weren't interested in discussing a British proposal that would require Saddam to fulfill six disarmament requirements in a short time.

Instead, they were talking about a list of tasks Saddam could complete within what its proponents said was a realistic time frame to prove Iraq's commitment to disarmament. At the end of that period the council would meet to determine whether Iraq had complied or not, council diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity. There would be no automatic trigger for war.

By contrast, the British proposal would give Saddam a maximum of 10 days to produce weapons he claims Iraq doesn't possess.

Hoping to entice support, Britain offered to abandon the March 17 ultimatum if members approved its list of disarmament tests for Saddam. The resolution would then implicitly threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" if the country failed to comply.

Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was studying the possibility of a summit of world leaders who are "searching for a compromise to get us out of this crisis." He said such a summit, with leaders not necessarily on the Security Council, was suggested by Brazil.

Annan met privately Wednesday and Thursday with ambassadors from all 15 nations on the council in an effort to bring the sides together.

Thanks for the answers. I agree, especially with regards to Hussein starting this and eliminating a lot of problems.

Perhaps the President should make a "inspectors should leave" pronouncement MORE than 72 hours before "go" time, and let Hussein sweat a little. Perhaps that would be adequate provocation??