You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
America works on ’Middle Six’ in effort to shift UNSC
2003-03-05
A week ago, Britain, Spain and the United States presented the Security Council with a resolution tersely detailing the failure of Iraq to disarm, thereby opening the path to war. But in those seven days, the mathematics for the text's passage have not become any kinder.
But the political skullduggery has become much more interesting.
Maybe nothing can move until Friday, when Hans Blix, the senior weapons monitor, will brief the Council again on the progress of his inspections in Iraq. This weekend will be the moment when the so-called Middle Six in the council will decide on which side of the red-hot poker fence they intend to sit. The weekend will also be the time when Washington and London will begin seriously to consider whether passage of the resolution is likely, or simply doomed. If they reach the conclusion that the latter is the case, they may conclude they would do better not to ask for a vote on the text at all.
Oh, no no no, we're going to force a vote. We're going to war regardless; point is to force the French to commit themselves.
Progress has not been helped by news of alleged spying by the United States on other Council members through electronic eavesdropping by the National Security Council [sic] to try to get an early guess on which way the undecided states are leaning. At least one member, Chile, is said to be angry and has asked the British Government to investigate the truth of the report and offer an explanation.
"With regrets, the Minister instructs me to inform you that we know nothing about this."
This spying scandal is not critical precisely because Chile is among the swing voters of the Middle Six. The others are Angola, Mexico, Pakistan, Guinea and Cameroon. Pakistan is thought to be edging towards support for the resolution, but it too has been peeved by news that Uncle Sam has been cheating.
Really? Got an, er, 'independent' source for that?
"One realises high politics is something that Jihadis, Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts don't engage in," a Pakistani source said. "But for Pakistan, given the level of intelligence sharing with the United States that's going on right now, it means they don't trust what we say behind closed doors. It will not be appreciated."
Now there's somebody who understands — darned right we don't trust them. This guy must work in intel.
Oh, I'm sure we trust them. We're just verifying... Heh heh.
The first task for Washington is to line up the nine votes that will be needed for the resolution to pass. Already on side are its two other sponsors ­ Britain and Spain ­ as well as Bulgaria. Firmly opposed are China, France, Germany and Russia. America needs five of the six waverers to win passage.
I wouldn't put Russia in the 'non' category. In the end, Putin is not going to blow his relationship with George for the sake of Saddam.
But that is just stage one. Assuming they can get those missing votes ­ and diplomats in Washington appear marginally more optimistic about this than their counterparts in London ­ they must then deal with the risk that the resolution might yet be shot down by a veto from China, Russia or France.
It will be vetoed by the French. We're counting on it.
Igor Ivanov, Russia's Foreign Minister, hinted in London yesterday that his government might be willing to do exactly that, though Western diplomats still hold out the hope that Moscow would not dare risk its ties with America in such a way. France remains the country most likely to use its right of veto. The White House yesterday dampened speculation that President George Bush had already concluded that passage of the resolution was unattainable. Members of the Security Council will get "the opportunity to vote", the President's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told reporters.
Yes, everyone will have the chance to go on record. People will be able to look it up for years to come...
Colin Powell, his Secretary of State, said yesterday America would not start any action until after the weapons inspectors reported to the Security Council, though a second resolution was "preferred". But the very notion of Britain and America simply abandoning the quest for a second resolution was already sending diplomatic tremors around the world. That would imply that Washington had determined finally to give up on the UN and go to war with Iraq with any countries ready to join the military effort. That would mean Britain. But without UN cover, Tony Blair would be confronting a political crisis more critical than any he has experienced before.
I'm getting more confident that Tony will survive this.
Quick victory, and an aftermath of war crimes trials, will enhance Tony's stats...
Posted by:Steve White

#14  Hmmm,wonder how many U.N.spies are running around the U.S.
Posted by: raptor   2003-03-06 09:12:01  

#13  America works on ’Middle Six’ in effort to shift UNSC

Why are they even bothering???

The UN has already proven itself totally useless. It's time to get on with the job of vaporizing Saddam and setting Iraq on a new course. Once this is done, then what is left of the UN should be expelled from the U.S., and our sights should then be set on the other members of Terrorists International.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2003-03-05 23:02:13  

#12  I agree with Jonesy. Nothing the French or Russians say before the vote has any real meaning. Bush is staring them down, and that is going to be almost as important a lesson for the miscreants of the world as what happens to Hussein - the lesson is, don't play poker with this man, unless you can afford to lose.

This is very high stakes poker, and the French, Germans, and Russians have neither cards nor faces. They've been raising and raising to sustain their bluff, but next week, Bush will ask to see their cards, and they will fold.
Posted by: Patrick   2003-03-05 21:27:36  

#11  It is hard for me to believe that France, Germany or Russia would actually use their veto. They have burned some/most of their political capital already, but why declare all-out diplomatic war on the U.S. when you can't affect the outcome? That would have serious ramifications for these nations. The U.S. is going to war anyway so their votes are practically irrelevant.

What you appear to have here is the U.N. ambassadors talking tough, presenting a united front, but in the end, I bet they will get reeled in and all abstain.
Posted by: jonesy   2003-03-05 18:48:09  

#10  thanks!
Posted by: becky   2003-03-05 11:07:26  

#9  Hang in there, Becky!
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2003-03-05 10:36:48  

#8  mjh: lol! :-)
Posted by: becky   2003-03-05 09:55:27  

#7  It seems to me that a veto may ironically help the cause for war. I believe that UK opinion polls support war in the case of UN approval or an unreasonable veto. Given the case that has been made, any veto may be considered unreasonable, so maybe there are some back channel negotiations or intentional blustering to secure a veto from someone.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert.
Posted by: mjh   2003-03-05 09:07:05  

#6  interesting points Peter. Well domestic issues and personalities still matter, i think that to a great extent the first Democratic primary will be in Iraq. A successful war gives a big boost to the hawks (Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt) and weakens Dean and even Kerry (Graham looks like far less of an 'expert" after the Khalid Muhammed capture) OTOH a war that goes badly kills any chance of Liberman Edwards or Gephardt being nominated.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-03-05 08:35:48  

#5  "Tony Blair would be confronting a political crisis more critical than any he has experienced before."
Just a point of note, many folks regard Blair to be the best Tory PM since Maggie. I wonder how laughable he would think it to be to jump ship and swim to the Tory boat. It needs a new leader.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-03-05 05:16:43  

#4  So France is waffling, and Russia now says they will veto? Not so sure. Besides which, whoever vetos are going to be the ones that killed the UN, after the US and UK take out Saddam. And once word of what France, (and Germany) have been doing during the sanctions is made public, well, it won't be pleasant.
Posted by: Ben   2003-03-05 05:13:11  

#3  Bad news, boys and girls, Putin announced tonight he WOULD veto

FASTER PLEASE!!!
Posted by: anon   2003-03-05 04:50:02  

#2  I still think it's going to be 11-4 against military intervention. Most of the world is really eager to humiliate the US, or to be more exact, Bush. They hope to ruin him politically, so as to ensure that a Democrat of the surrender variety wins in 2004. Chirac is very much in favor of regime change, in Washington. He wants a submissive American president, who takes orders from the UN, which in Chirac's imagination means : from France.

It's a pity that Democrat hawks have virtually no chance of winning their party's primaries, because nothing would be so devastating for the EUnuch plans as a hawkish Democrat in the White House. They would have to follow like sheep, just as they did when Clinton found a spine somewhere and decided to bomb the hell out of Milosevic.
Posted by: Peter   2003-03-05 03:01:45  

#1  Yet the froggie papers whisper, "no veto."

As was pointed out here before, "You first. No, YOU first!"
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-03-05 01:00:19  

00:00