| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| Security Council Vote Delayed as U.S. Scrounges for Votes on Iraq Resolution | |
| 2003-03-11 | |
Foreign ministers from around the globe will take turns speaking their minds on Iraq Tuesday as the U.N. Security Council continues to ponder a resolution authorizing war with Baghdad. The council was planning to hold an open debate Tuesday on the Iraq crisis after the United States and Britain were forced to delay a vote on a hard deadline for Iraq when it became clear their proposed resolution wouldn't get the support it needs — despite a flurry of personal appeals from President Bush on Monday.
Bush is expected to work the phones again on Tuesday in an effort to save the resolution. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said consultations were ongoing and a vote could come anytime later in the week. "The vote will be the day we get nine or 10 votes, and I think we're getting close," said Spanish Ambassador Inocencio Arias, whose country is co-sponsoring the resolution with the United States and Britain. But even if they gain the votes, it's not enough. French President Jacques Chirac declared that his country would veto any resolution that opened the way to war. The Russians also said they would vote against the proposal as it was currently worded. Both the United States and Britain said they were willing to negotiate the deadline and other changes to the resolution. During a closed-door council session late Monday, British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock suggested a two-phase approach to the resolution, in which Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would have 10 days to make a "strategic decision," to disarm, council diplomats said. The inspectors would then have a brief window to verify whether Iraq was carrying out a set of tests — or "benchmarks" — before the decision to wage war was made. Some of the fence-sitting countries were talking about delaying the ultimatum by as much as a month, until April 17 — though that stands no chance with the United States, as hundreds of thousands of American soldiers awaited their orders in the Persian Gulf. Pakistan's prime minister said his country, a key swing vote on the council, wouldn't support war with Iraq. Ruling party spokesman Azeem Chaudhry said Tuesday that this meant Pakistan would abstain from voting. Chile, another vote which Washington is after, also suggested it's not ready to embrace the resolution without changes. The United States is assured the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico leaning heavily toward the U.S. position. But with Germany, Syria and now Pakistan preparing abstentions or "no" votes, Washington is trying to canvass the support of Chile, Angola and Guinea. Meanwhile, in Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair battled a growing revolt within his own party. Noting the pressure at home and at the United Nations, Blair said he was open to a compromise. "We are talking to all the other countries about how we ensure that we can make a proper judgment about whether Saddam is cooperating or not," he said. One example, Blair said, would be whether Iraq was allowing inspectors to interview scientists outside the country. Australia is also taking some heat for its government's hard-line stance against Iraq. While Prime Minister John Howard prepared his pro-Washington case against Iraq for Tuesday, a top Australian intelligence adviser resigned Tuesday to protest the government's policy. On Monday, chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix told the council that an Iraqi drone recently discovered didn't constitute a "smoking gun." Blix said Iraq should have included the drone in its December weapons declaration but he's not sure if the unmanned vehicle was illegal. But the United States and Britain say it's one more nail in the coffin for Saddam, unless he can convince the council before March 17 that he has fully disarmed. If the resolution is defeated, Bush and Blair have said they would be prepared to go to war anyway with a coalition of willing nations. But U.N. support would give the war international legitimacy and guarantee that members of the organization share the costs of rebuilding Iraq. But the White House argued the opposite Monday, saying a lack of support would hurt U.N. credibility. If the United Nations fails to act, Fleischer said, "that means the United Nations will not be the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein. Another international body will disarm Saddam Hussein. So this will remain an international action, it's just the United Nations will have chosen to put itself on the sidelines." But France and Russia seemed undeterred. "No matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no,"' Chirac said Monday. "There is no cause for war to achieve the objective that we fixed — the disarmament of Iraq. His foreign minister met top Angolan officials Monday to lobby the undecided African members of the council. Bush made an urgent round of phone calls to eight world leaders trying to salvage the resolution on Monday. Chinese President Jiang Zemin told Bush that weapons inspections should continue and the standoff should be settled peacefully, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. Jiang was also called by Blair. Bush also spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, South African President Thabo Mbeki, Sultan Qaboos of Oman, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, Turkish governing party leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal and President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria. | |
| Posted by:Bent Pyramid |
| #4 Betcha we DO get the 9 plus a veto or two. Fox news reported this evening (EST) that 3 of the U6 were coming 'closer' to the US position. I just can't imagine Mexico and Chile staking their future on an Iraq vote. The 3 african nations, either. France has already staked out it's future as anti-US, but is it possible that they can bribe or threaten the others better than the US? I think GW will consider 9 with a veto a victory. Whoever issues the veto will then be isolated. Real high-stakes poker. |
| Posted by: Wes Meador 2003-03-11 21:28:29 |
| #3 I heard a clip of el baradi (sp) on the radio last night saying the drones were no biggie, the declared them a while ago... SOSO. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-11 10:56:39 |
| #2 Someday soon they'll all be around with their hands out. Make damn sure we remember who supported us and who stiffed us when that time comes. And it will come. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-03-11 10:48:26 |
| #1 Blixie is unwilling to state that the drone represents a smoking gun. Is it time yet for Powell to state in public that Blixie is biased??? Depends on the reaction from the "undecided 6". I have seen nothing on their reaction to the drone and the other weapons found this week. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-03-11 08:25:29 |