| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Russia and France angered by end of diplomacy |
| 2003-03-18 |
| The United States and Britain walked away from the United Nations yesterday, withdrawing their bid for a Having failed to secure the necessary nine votes, the co-sponsors of the resolution - Britain, the US and Spain - decided not to seek a vote and vowed to attack Iraq without council support if Saddam Hussein fails to disarm, leaving the UN in a Go ahead, vote us out. "Having held further discussions with council members over the weekend and in the last few hours, we have had to conclude that council consensus will not be possible in line with resolution 1441," said Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador. "Colin, I'm afraid the weasels won't keep their word." "Yes, Jeremy, that's why they call them weasels." "Quite." As the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, questioned the legitimacy of an attack without council backing, Washington and London explicitly blamed France for the collapse of the process, a charge Paris labelled The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, breaking weeks of silence, labelled military action without UN backing "a mistake", while his foreign minister called it "illegal." Pretty mild for Putin. I think he sees it's time to beat a tactical retreat and see what happens. The dramatic decision to withdraw came as closed-door security council talks on the crisis were due to begin. UN employees were yesterday preparing to leave Baghdad, while countries closed their embassies there and some foreign journalists pulled out. The UN ordered weapons inspectors to leave. Despite the removal of the inspectors, the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, published, as promised, a "to do" list of disarmament tasks for Baghdad. Thanks for the list Hans, we'll take it from here. The list, required under the terms of a 1999 resolution, does not accuse Iraq of possessing illegal arms, but conveys dissatisfaction with the information provided so far and demands information on a range of issues, including VX gas, mustard gas, sarin, smallpox and anthrax. All the stuff Sammy says they don't have anymore. Although Russia and China were opposed to the resolution, and the so-called "middle six" uncommitted nations had not been won over, the US and UK singled out France Because Russia and China wouldn't have been intransigent without France. "One country in particular has underlined its intention to veto any ultimatum 'no matter what the circumstance'," Sir Jeremy said. "That country rejected our proposed compromise before even the Iraqi government itself." The US envoy to the UN, John Negroponte, said: "We believe that the vote would have been close ... We regret that in the face of an explicit threat to veto by a France struck back, insisting that Britain, the US and Spain had withdrawn the resolution because the majority of the council was opposed to it. "During the last day, members of the council repeatedly stated - and it is a majority on the council - that it would not be legitimate to authorise the use of force now when the inspections ... are producing Paris dismissed criticisms in public, but privately French officials were bitter at what they saw as a deliberate Good, we'd hate to rub it in. Diplomats at the Quai d'Orsay, France's foreign ministry, said it was "utterly false and misleading" to suggest France was against force at any stage. "If the inspectors say they are being prevented from doing their job, the president has often said that we would be open to every option, including the use of force," one said. And then they said that Blixie was the only one who could decide that. And we know Blixie is a professional optimist. So did the French. In Moscow, Mr Putin said a war without UN approval "would be fraught with the gravest consequences, will result in casualties and destabilise the international situation in general ... We stand for resolving the problem exclu sively through peaceful means. Any other option would be a mistake." The Kremlin's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said: "The use of force against Iraq, especially with reference to previous resolutions of the UN security council, has no legal grounds." In direct contradiction of the advice given by the British attorney general to Downing Street yesterday, he said resolution 1441 "clearly states the security council will convene immediately if the need to ensure the complete observance of the existing resolutions arises." No, it doesn't. Russia's parliamentary speaker, Gennady Seleznyov, said an attack would cause the world to consider that "the US is a terrorist state that can only be dealt with in the Hague tribunal". US officials said Moscow had declined a Pentagon offer to coordinate postwar issues such as humanitarian aid. Good. And we don't have to ask again. The Canadian prime minister, Jean Chretien, said his country's military would play no role in a war unsanctioned by the UN. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 Mr Chretien and his Liberal buddies sold their souls to the United Nations fifty years ago. Since then Canada has become the first country in the world to unilaterally disarm. So not supporting this war just hides this dirty little secret. Course in the same time period they abdicated total economic sovreignty to the United States. You can see where this juxtaposition might lead? Trust me, the Chretien braintrust never will. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-18 20:16:14 |
| #10 --In Moscow, Mr Putin said a war without UN approval "would be fraught with the gravest consequences, will result in casualties and destabilise the international situation in general ... We stand for resolving the problem exclusively through peaceful means. Any other option would be a mistake." -- Defense needs to save this for later when they move on Chechnya. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-18 12:20:41 |
| #9 Mexico should not be the issue here. We need to focus all such inclinations into a slap-in-the-face to France. I seriously believe that the French ambassador to the U.S. should be sent home for at least the duration of the war. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-18 10:47:37 |
| #8 Vincente Fox cannot *possibly* be this dumb. It makes no sense for Mexico to try and shaft the US. They need us one hell of a lot more than we need them. NAFTA, anyone?... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-03-18 10:12:11 |
| #7 Becky, Russia has been very interested in the west on notable occcasions, and primarily with the French and Germans. Back in the pre-US pre-eminence period when there really were empires, France and Germany invaded Russia, and nearly succeeded, on three occasions. True, Russia has been suspicious of its oriental neighbours since Ghengis Khan's days, but its real nemesis has, in recent history, been European. I suppose the US, being a perceived threat from the west and the east, and the north, must've really given them the willies. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-18 08:22:53 |
| #6 We will surely take advantage of any documents found in Iraq reflecting embargo-busting by French and German companies. These should be made public by a vote in the UNSC....wouldn't that be delicious? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-03-18 08:22:05 |
| #5 We're not going to punish mexico or anyone in the middle six. That would contradict our stand that we would have won it hadnt been for French intransigence. I think one of the reasons that we didnt go through with vote was precisely to save the middle 6 from voting - by avoiding a vote we obviate the need to reward yes votes,or punish no votes. We will continue to pursue policies we see in our interests, including maintaining relations with them. The real strain will be with France. Re:" a tribunal" the only tribunal for judging states is - the UNSC. I am quite sure France will not go there, as they would certainly not even get a majority. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-03-18 08:01:44 |
| #4 It's becoming clear that France, Germany and Russia are going to make a word play for the US being brought up before a Tribunal. It would be funny, considering their own exploits, if such a large percentage of the public weren't such lemmings unable to make the required mental connection. France and Germany would be wise to remember that Russia will always looking over it's shoulder with more concern to the East, than it ever will to the West. And as such, it will never truly be their ally. |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-18 07:54:35 |
| #3 Unlike the Cretin to the North, President Fox has not put a knife in our back. Mexico has a 100 year tradition of opposition to involvement in War except for self-defense and you have to respect them for the courage of their convictions. An honorable friend can disagree and still be a friend. Let them stay home and watch our backs - they will do a better job than that clown in Canukistan. |
| Posted by: edwardvt 2003-03-18 05:35:08 |
| #2 Although Russia and China were opposed to the resolution, and the so-called "middle six" uncommitted nations had not been won over,... Mexico is one of these "middle six". I would love nothing more than for a whole bunch of workplace roundups and deportations of Mexican illegal aliens to begin sometime soon. Preferably NOW. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-03-18 00:33:06 |
| #1 It's becoming clear that France, Germany and Russia are going to make a word play for the US being brought up before a Tribunal. It would be funny, considering their own exploits, if such a large percentage of the public weren't such lemmings unable to make the required mental connection. France and Germany would be wise to remember that Russia will always looking over it's shoulder with more concern to the East, than it ever will to the West. And as such, it will never truly be their ally. |
| Posted by: becky 3/18/2003 7:54:35 AM |