| Submit your comments on this article | |||||
| Iraq | |||||
| U.S. Officials Say U.N. Future At Stake in Vote | |||||
| 2003-02-25 | |||||
| Edited for length from the Washington Post As it launches an all-out lobbying campaign to gain United Nations approval, the Bush administration has begun to characterize the decision facing the Security Council not as whether there will be war against Iraq, but whether council members are willing to irrevocably destroy the world body's legitimacy by failing to follow the U.S. lead, senior U.S. and diplomatic sources said.
Interesting strategy. Decision's been made, now you decide whether you're with us or against us. And in the process decide wheether the UNSC is dead or not. Why GWB's critics never get that he means exactly what he says, I don't know. ... the message being conveyed in high-level contacts with other council governments is that a military attack on Iraq is inevitable, these officials and diplomats said. What they must determine, U.S. officials are telling these governments, is if their insistence that U.N. weapons inspections be given more time is worth the destruction of council credibility at a time of serious world upheaval. Somone from the State Dept. said this? Who knew Rummy had a mole there?
Iraq should have been a slam-dunk for the UNSC. If it can't do right here, forget it doing anything worthwhile when the IAEA brings the NKors up to them. The lobbying campaign went into full gear last weekend, as the administration prepared for yesterday's introduction by the United States, Britain and Spain of a new council resolution declaring Baghdad in violation of U.N. demands. ... The administration maintains such approval already exists in previous resolutions, but has bowed to the wishes of London and Madrid, its main council allies, who believe a new vote will quell massive antiwar feeling in their own countries. A number of other countries outside the council have said their support for war depends on a new resolution. Question is, what does a French veto mean to them? The administration holds out scant hope of repeating last fall's unanimous council tally, when all 15 members agreed to demand Iraq submit to a tough new weapons inspections regimen. Three of the five permanent members with veto power — France, Russia and China — have called for a war decision to be postponed while inspections continue. Of the 10 non-permanent members, only Spain and Bulgaria currently support the U.S. position; Syria and Germany are considered definite no's, and Pakistan either a no or an abstention.
That it would be. But another council diplomat said: "There is no mention of any sort of threat or pressure. None whatsoever." Do we have to threaten anyone? Even France, which has led the current council majority asking for more inspections, has repeatedly spoken of unity as the primary council goal. As it sets out to reverse a potential 11 to 4 vote against the new resolution, the administration is hoping that Paris will ultimately decline to be the spoiler and will opt for abstention. They won't. "The argument the Americans are giving us," this diplomat said, "is 'if you support us, that will put pressure on France and they'll dare not apply a veto.' " And if France can be persuaded to abstain, several administration officials said they believe Russia and China will do the same. But the French won't abstain, so this isn't a good strategy. Although the administration appears willing to declare victory with a 9 to 2 vote, with four abstentions, other council members said it would be a false victory. "Abstention will mean opposition, it will not mean support," a non-permanent council diplomat said. "If the decision to go to war with Iraq is adopted, it has to be adopted . . . with an important majority, including at least Russia and China, even if France doesn't want to go along." Sounds like he's moving the goalposts. "This idea of putting three members with veto power on the outside is not something that sounds much like unity," the diplomat said. "Are they going to declare the Security Council 'relevant' by virtue of submission by the smallest states?" If those small states have more spine than France, heck yes. If a nine-vote, no-veto majority cannot be assured, the senior U.S. official said, the administration will make a "tactical decision" as to whether it is better to proceed to war with no vote at all. As the article said earlier, that decision has been made. | |||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #23 TGA,and Murat If ,as you say,the U.S.should be excluded from the UNSC,if the U.S.goes after Sammy without UNSC approval.Then what should be done with all the despotic members of the U.N.who ignore the UNSC on a daily basis.ex.Lybia,Syria,N.Korea. Please do not ingnore this like you do all those who counter your arguments. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-02-26 10:44:47 |
| #22 Ok, if you knew the answers already (without asking) how could you be caught off guard? Or did the mindreader flunk his job? The way it was said... "Germany won't participate in a war against Iraq." How insulting was that? Oh, the Hitler remark again. I have stated already: It was made by a minister, not by Schroeder. Schroeder sacked her and fully apologized. 95 pc of Germans thought the remark was totally inappropriate and stupid. But yet it was good enough to "poison" a 50 yo relationship. God, faery princesses you are indeed! In the future we'll extradite stupid ministers to the U.S. (we have a few if you want them). The Hobbesian ideology of the Bush administration is discussed as much in America as outside. And I could quote lines from Kagan, Perle, Rumsfeld etc that indeed worry me. How do Chirac and Schroeder benefit from standing up to bully America? Both know that the U.S. will do what they want to do anyway so the French rallying with the U.S. would certainly save more of the much quoted assets they have in Iraq than vetoing U.S. policy. Ok, my dislike for Chirac is too strong to defend him any further. Then you say we didn't want to be dragged into an American war in fear of terorist reprisals. Oh, does Afghanistan ring a bell? Where was the fear then? Right now German troops are assuring peace in Kabul. Guess that doesn't make us OBL's best friends. Nobody here believes that "Old Europe's" stance will make it any safer from terrorist attacks. Terrorists won't make much of a difference. Actually Europe may even face a bigger threat because attacking America is a lot more difficult these days due to all the colorful alerts you have now. Attacking Berlin or Paris is easier to do than NY or Washington, and the results are the same: Fear in the godless Western World. Germans do have a better memory of war than the U.S. And that includes me. As a boy I got a first hand experience of what WMD mean when they are dropped onto your city. I guess you don't want details. Maybe thats why we don't rush to war that easily anymore. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-02-26 02:58:35 |
| #21 What kind of diplomats do you have, dont they ASK? Sure. And the answer would have been: Saddam is not a threat, war is not an option. Well, we respectfully disagree. So now what do we do? Go to the UN? Well, we did. The only thing Schroeder said before the elections was that Germany would not take part in a war against Iraq. Then the bullying started That's because of the way it was said... you know, the hitler thing and all (yeah yeah I know he apologized) rule a Hobbesian world with overwhelming military force There are those true colors again. "America is the problem." selfish greedy Europeans leaving the US out in the cold to make deals with Saddam No, just Schroeder & Chiraq. Both benefiting from their new-found calling: standing up to the bully Americans. Just wish they would pick a different issue than Iraq. Oh well, whatever is more conveniant I guess. Risking the U.S. friendship Oh please. There are ways to show your displeasure, and then there's the knife in the back method. Did you never wonder why the strongest ally you have on Continental Europe started to disagree with you? yeah. economic interests plus not wanting to be dragged into an American war in fear of terrorist repraisals, or whatever else Germans fear. Coupled with a bit of "everybody hates you for a reason, you know" But please tell us, why did the strongest ally we have disagree with us? |
| Posted by: RW 2003-02-26 01:59:07 |
| #20 Of course, selfish greedy Europeans leaving the US out in the cold to make deals with Saddam. Its so easy, right? Risking the U.S. friendship for some millions at stake in Iraq? Get real, ok? Yes the U.S. did go to UN to get the ok. They didn't expect anything but an ok. Its better with an ok, because you dont foot the bill alone. Caught off guard? What kind of diplomats do you have, dont they ASK? Did you never wonder why the strongest ally you have on Continental Europe started to disagree with you? The only thing Schroeder said before the elections was that Germany would not take part in a war against Iraq. Then the bullying started. Damn I dont want to defend him but I was seriously worried about the way Germany was treated after it dared to disagree with something the US wanted. It's very difficult to talk to a friend who won't listen. I don't agree with Schroeder's attitude, not a bit, but I am worried about the "New Republican Thinktank" who believes that America was meant to rule a Hobbesian world with overwhelming military force. Re Antiamericanism. I must say I have heard words far more uglier about Europeans from America than the other way round. And not only from the New York Post. Maybe you should read Senator Byrds Senate Speech on Febr. 12th. Oh I forgot, all the "patriotic" major US papers "forgot" to carry it. Do a Google search for: "Sleepwalking through History" I hope you dont blame this man to be Anti-american. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-02-26 01:24:26 |
| #19 But what got Germany upset was the automatism of war. What got Germany upset is that they didn't want to be dragged into an "American problem". Schroeder knew this, took advantage of it, and voila, here we are. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-02-26 01:07:15 |
| #18 I didn't finish #5. Which world do you want to be a part of? Oh, and allies don't use latent anti-americanism to get elected. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-02-26 00:35:08 |
| #17 1. Saddam has delayed for 12 years. 2. The UNSC does serve no purpose, it let him get away w/it all those years. All we did was give it the chance(s) to live up to its responsibilities with US paying the major portion of the freight (as usual). 3. Talk about toleration, how should we treat allies/friends who invoke Article 5 and then renege? 4. Lackey (Belgium) Profiteers (fill in the blank) and that includes the UN which oversees over $20+ bil in euros and $30+ bil in oil-for-food contracts. 5. Nato and the UN are "olde world." |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-02-26 00:33:37 |
| #16 yeah right. I think we've seen that our "true friends" decided to put their economic interests ahead of a friend's security. What you say would make sense, except that the US did in fact go to the UNSC with the first resolution didn't they? What would be the point if they not only knew that war wasn't going to be an option, but also that this would create a rift between old friends? I think the US was caught off guard by the ferocity of the opposition. You're forgetting one thing: there's no reason for such staunch opposition if your only arguments are of a moral nature. Far better and effective would be to wait until the US screws up and then say "we told you so". BTW, can you point out a single time when Bush threatened to ignore the UNSC before the elections in Germany?? Didn't think so. Old Europe wasn't serious about Iraq from the very beginning. Along comes the US to cut the B.S. and that's when Old Europe started to show its true colors. With friends like these........ |
| Posted by: RW 2003-02-25 23:46:20 |
| #15 You don't get it. The U.S. have been telling everyone for months that they made the war decision already. Period. How about that one. The U.S. (or better an unanimous Security Council) tells Iraq the following. We expect Iraq to be free of any nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (including missiles of a range exceeding 100 miles) by [insert date]. If you comply, we will withdraw our troops and give you a guarantee that you won't be attacked as long as you keep Iraq WMD-free. But if after this date we find ANYTHING you are toast, period. No more tactics, no more little revelations. At least thats would be a fair deal. We know that Saddam won't honor it of course. But thats his problem then. But the situation right now is: Whatever you do we will attack you anyway. And Saddam knew that since last year. So the only tactics he can use is "delay delay" and hope for a split between the U.S. and Europe. Well it worked. I don't want the U.S. to back down on Saddam. I want a knife at his throat. Thats the only language dictators understand. But if you believe what U.S. officials say (including Bush) Saddam never had a choice. The consequences? Desperate people will do desperate things. Whats the point of that new resolution that says: "Saddam wasted his last chance...etc". Well if he did what do you need to talk about? If he did than the only resolution can be: "Saddam wasted his last chance, war now." Not that phony diplotalk about "serious consequences" and the like. I never agreed with Schroeders policy. But what got Germany upset was the automatism of war. That was obvious a year ago already. The constant U.S. threat that they would ignore the Security Council (I call this blackmail tactics) was one reason for Schroeder to say that Germany would not vote for war. Frankly, as long as the U.S. declares that they would ignore the decisions of the Security Council if they dont like them I don't see a point in Security Council meetings. Unless the Council makes its stand and excludes the U.S. Because if it tolerates a member that openly says it won't respect the Council, it serves no purpose. If the U.S. continues its path towards unilateralism it may very well solve the Iraq problem singlehanded. But sooner or later it will lose its true friends and surround itself with lackeys and profiteers. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-02-25 22:31:10 |
| #14 Why GWB's critics never get that he means exactly what he says, I don't know. Critics? How about supporters? I watched Joe Scarborough, former Pubbie Congressman from Florida as an MSNBC anchor seriously discussing the idea that Cameroon was going to have a major voice in whether, where and how US Forces will be positioned and used. I start screaming, well speaking crossly at the tv set, saying that Bush and Blair have both said that they are going to disarm Saddam preferably with Security Council backing or without it. The UN is deciding its fate, no the US. George Bush will be President for the next six years, if it survives that long, the UN will be a dead letter. I hope Bush, Blair and Howard of Australia launch a new Free World Forum organization, where you must be a civilized country to become a member. You then bring Canada, Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe on board, even France and Germany can join, but American leadership will be paramount. |
| Posted by: Jabba the Tutt 2003-02-25 22:19:56 |
| #13 This deeply threatens the alliance of english-speaking countries That already has been done by our "friends" Chiraq & Schroeder. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-02-25 22:18:49 |
| #12 true german ally: I hate to say it but I agree with you 100%. I hate Saddams Regime, and I'd like the bombs to start dropping as of yesterday But how the US are playing this one is stumping me. Are they being brilliant, do they have an ace up their sleeve that I can't see, or what, because the way this is playing out it would have been better for them NOT to have gone to the UN in the first place, just started the war and produced the evidence and justification afterwards. The longer they procrastinate, the more the opposition grows. Now if they go to war without the UN, it's goodbye Howard in Australia and goodbye Blair in Britain. This deeply threatens the alliance of english-speaking countries, at a point in history when we REALLY need to stick together. After all, we are currently in an unknown WW3 with fundy Islam. Please either start dropping the bombs or produce the diplomatic coup to increase solidarity! I will support the US to the death but the more time goes by, the less my countrymen will do the same. |
| Posted by: anon 2003-02-25 22:07:45 |
| #11 Why won't our dear allies, France & Germany, commit to a definite date by which Saddam has to be disarmed, after which face serious consequences? Why has France & Germany shifted the responsibility onto the inspectors to prove that Iraq is weapons free?? Screw this. Our so-called friends have other motives, mainly their own economic interests. Fair enough. The US has its own interests and they concern its defence. I would make this deal with Chiraq & Schroeder: Bush backs down on Iraq completely, lets the UN handle Saddam for as long as it wants, but if Saddam tests a nuclear bomb, uses biological or chem weapons, or sells them to anybody in the future, then France & Germany voluntarily withdraw from NATO, and France gives up its veto at the UNSC. Any takers? |
| Posted by: RW 2003-02-25 21:50:09 |
| #10 It's quite amazing how you ignore what that statement really means: "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. (When?) It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not." Means: You matter only if you approve everything we do. But if the Security Council approves everything the U.S. does, what do we need a Security Council for? If the president said the same thing to Congress, wouldn't someone shout dictatorship? How surprised can you be that most nations at the Security Council feel a bit... err pissed at the U.S.? The Iraq war was decided more than a year ago. Saddam could have eaten every anthrax spore he has and it wouldn't have made a difference. Either way, the Security Council faces irrelevance. Just looks like it prefers to go down with a bang, not with a whimper. Why do Mexico or Chile oppose the U.S.? Do they have anything to lose in Iraq? I don't believe that France and Germany killed the Security Council, the U.S. did. Nobody needs a body of 15 yes-sayers. Waste of money. And of course, if the decision to go to war was final all the time, how can you expect Iraq to disarm? If I didn't despise Saddam that much I'd say: Doesn't Iraq have the right of self defense? Get me right: I don't blame the U.S. trying to finish off the Saddam regime. I just don't like the hypocritical way it is done. A shoddy farce, sorry. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-02-25 20:11:32 |
| #9 i fail to see how current events tells us anything about the politics of the 1930's. The US WAS isolationist in the interwar period, and that WAS a big problem for the Brits, who in turn got wobbly and didnt support the French like they should have, who in turn betrayed the Czechs. However we LEARNED from that. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-02-25 16:29:45 |
| #8 IIRC the Origins of the Second World War by A.J.P. Taylor placed a major portion of the blame for the Second WW on America because it refused to join and participate in the League of Nations. The contemporary behavior of the League's successor amply demonstrates that old piece of academic dogma to be flat wrong and just another piece of pure anti-ameicanism. Thanks for the vindication of the Republican Senate of 1919, France, Germany, etc. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-02-25 15:37:11 |
| #7 "Base muleteers of France! Like peasant footboys do they keep the walls And dare not take up arms like gentlemen." --William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1 |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-02-25 11:50:40 |
| #6 Don't count Vincente Fox out of this one. He was in full control of US/ Mexican policy until 9/11. He's had no traction since then. This is where he can extract maximum advantage. Sure voting 'no' will fry W, but he's really got nothing to lose at this point. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-02-25 11:22:32 |
| #5 Oh, good point! I'd rather have cash than kisses any time... |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-02-25 11:04:11 |
| #4 Liberalhawk, Blair's the closest thing Labour have to a god - he's the only leader to have got the party re-elected, ever. So they wouldn't ditch him without good reason. Also, surprisingly, the sentiment in the commons towards the war is far more gung-ho than it is on the street. That's partly because Blair's party is now stuffed full of brainless New Labourites carefully selected by Tony to preach his political gospel and not answer back. The alternative leaders don't really bear thinking about. On the other hand, the Tory party seems to be slipping in and out of consciousness, barely keeping alive. True, they've seen an upsurge in recent polls but that's only because of public disenchantment with Blair. There really is no party perceived as fit to govern, other than Labour, and no leader fit to lead Labour other than Blair. As Tony's weathered the storm so far, I'm confident now he's safe for the time being. If the war doesn't go to plan though, and public opinion plummeted, it's conceivable he'd resign. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-02-25 11:02:52 |
| #3 --Somone from the State Dept. said this? Who knew Rummy had a mole there? Don't underestimate Powell. It's a tag team...-- Amazing what happens when an "ally" stabs you full frontal on international TV. --Bush telephoned Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos earlier this month, and Assistant Secretary of State Walter H. Kansteiner III last weekend began a tour of the capitals of Angola, Guinea and Cameroon. But they didn't kiss anybody...-- But W did propose $15 billion in AIDS funding. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-02-25 10:57:10 |
| #2 "Somone from the State Dept. said this? Who knew Rummy had a mole there?" Like a lot of conservatives, I've always been a bit wary of the State Department. For example, I've always loved the comment, "The Defense Department exists to protect American interests and the State Department exists to sell them out." However, I'm beginning to get the feeling that those elements in Foggy Bottom that always seemed more interested in preserving and advancing the European Socialist experiment than in serving the interests of the US got a bit of wake-up call the September before last. Also, watching France and Germany cripple the UN and indulge in a major powergrab in the EU (both big favorites with State) also may have had some impact. We'll just have to see how this develops. |
| Posted by: Patrick Phillips 2003-02-25 09:45:57 |
| #1 if we get nine votes, we'll call it a "moral majority" even if france does veto. I suspect we might do the same even if we get only eight votes. Remember, when push comes to shove the crucial reason for the second resolutuion is to provide cover to Tony Blair (sorry, Aznar) So the question is what can Tony spin to the fence sitters among the Labour MPs??? And he's very good at making his case, lets remember. And ultimately Labour knows that the likely result of tossing Tony is a Tory govt (am I not right, bulldog?). So they need just enough cover to protect themselves from the activists in their constituencies. Passage with france voting yes would be a "slam dunk". Passage with 9 votes and 4 abstentions would be more than adequate. A "moral victory" with nine votes and a French veto is probably enough. Even a "moral victory" with only 8 votes will swing some of the fence sitters - Tony will have to the rest, to delay any move to toss him till the war is underway. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-02-25 08:57:58 |