|
US, Britian pushing for UN votes
The US and Britain would fail to secure a majority for a United Nations resolution authorising war against Iraq if the vote was to be held today, according to a Guardian survey of security council members. Only four countries - Britain, the US, Bulgaria and Spain - would vote in favour. The remainder of the 15-member council would either vote against or abstain. There aren't going to be any abstentions, since such a vote carries all the risk of a 'no' without any of the supposed benefits. Nine votes are required to secure a resolution. Success also requires that none of the five permanent members - the US, Britain, France, Russia or China - exercises its veto. The US and Britain expressed confidence yesterday that they can turn the security council around through intensive lobbying at the UN headquarters in New York. But over the last week the anti-war mood in the security council has hardened. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, threatened to use his veto. He told the French press: "If it is necessary, we will use our veto, but I do not think it is helpful to get into debate about this at the moment." The negotiations will begin in earnest next week after the countries digest the latest report by the UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the International Atomic Energy Agency head, Mohammed El Baradei, to the security council today. The tempo will pick up next week. The US and Britain want the vote on the resolution by the end of February. Mr Blix is due to report back to the security council again on March 1 and war could follow within days. Britain is taking the lead in drafting the second resolution. It could go for a simple resolution that would say Iraq is in material breach and authorise war but, since that is unlikely to win much support, Britain is now looking at a more complex resolution. The draft now taking shape would set a deadline, possibly as short as 48 or 72 hours, for Iraq to comply. Built into that resolution would be an implicit assumption that military action would follow. "The second resolution would light the fuse," a security council source said yesterday. It would be a short fuse, one that "only positive action by Iraq could stamp out". A third resolution has been ruled out. The US and Britain intend pushing ahead even if it looks as if France, Russia or China was to exercise its veto. The US and Britain will settle for a majority of nine, saying that this was sufficient to provide a moral mandate, even if one country was to use its veto to block a second resolution and UN-sanctioned action. The French would dearly love to have the Russians & Chinese with them on this; an isolated veto will have even more serious reprecussions for them. The US appears to have accepted it will have to settle for a simple majority. The US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, told the BBC that the US would be satisfied if it could gain the minimum nine security council votes needed to secure a resolution . That might give Tony Blair enough cover. When the last resolution on Iraq was tabled in November, it was unanimous. The British government now regards Germany as beyond the pale: "They are deaf To secure the nine necessary votes, the US will have to work on the wavering middle ground of Guinea, Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, Angola and Cameroon. The Chilean position is strongly against a resolution authorising force. Chile's President Ricardo Lagos has made a point of saying that avoiding war, not disarming Iraq, should be the priority. In telephone conversations with President Bush, Lagos has reiterated the Chilean position that inspectors need more time. Chile is also insisting that the UN should take the final decision. Er, Mr. Lagos, remember that free trade agreement you want? In Mexico domestic public opinion is overwhelmingly distrustful of the US and opposed to war, but neither the government, nor the population, can forget that their superpower neighbour is the destination of 80% of national exports. Have they noticed that sudden drop in sales of French wine? Pakistan occupies the central ground; as a Muslim country, it will not participate in an attack on fellow Muslims so it says it will not provide troops, but it could be persuaded to join the "yes" vote. Let's hope so, it will provide lots of spittle from Waziristan, and thus more material for Fred :-) Angola, which would abstain if a vote were held today, may eventually come round. American oil companies are by far its biggest investors and America its biggest bilateral donor. Guinea is also wavering, but diplomats say that the annual aid package it receives from America will sway its vote in the direction of the US. There's two. Cameroon has so far given no hint of its policy on Iraq. It would probably fall into line behind the pro-war lobbies at the 11th hour. There's another. The Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, told the French president, Jacques Chirac, that inspections should be continued. But Beijing is still unlikely to defy Washington with whom it wishes to build better relations. If anyone abstains, it will be the Chinese. France could be crucial. Mr Chirac has taken a seemingly entrenched position and the British government is no longer confident that he can be swayed. France votes 'no' regardless. The US and Britain had also been confident that Russia could come round. But the Russians were yesterday dismissive of the news that Iraq had illegally tested missiles beyond their permitted range, calling it "a technical matter". Technical or not, Vlad understands the consequences of a 'no.' Posted by: Steve White 2003-02-14 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=10213 |