|
Blair/Putin talks reveal deep splits over Iraq
Tony Blair's attempts to heal the diplomatic rift caused by the war against Iraq suffered a serious setback yesterday when he was forced to endure an extraordinary public lecture from Russia's president, Vladimir Putin. Speaking after talks held during a one-day trip to Russia, the Russian leader used a press conference to contradict Mr Blair's assertion that the war had been won. "The question is, where is Saddam? Where are his arsenals of weapons of mass destruction?" the Russian president asked. "Perhaps Saddam is still hiding somewhere in Moscow underground, sitting on cases of weapons of mass destruction, preparing to blow the whole thing up and kill hundreds of thousands of people. We do not know what the situation is." He added: "What we want is to ensure that there is no ambiguity and that the threat has been eliminated."
On TV, Putin did seem remarkably cheery. Does he know assurances as to Sammy's fate won't be possible for the coalition?
Mr Blair's trip coincided with France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg agreeing at a mini summit to set up an independent European armed force. The move appeared to be a clear threat to the supremacy of a US-dominated Nato, which Mr Blair strongly supports. Yesterday the Prime Minister repeatedly called for America, the EU and Russia to work together in a strategic partnership. At his joint press conference with the Russian president, Mr Blair said it would be "highly dangerous" if these rival powers failed to co-operate with each other.
| Tony's fighting a losing battle here, I think. There's no common threat against both Europe and the U.S. to justify NATO. It's degenerating into a feel-good organization and a debating society. Its primary use in any future operations will be to allow member states to spread blame for things that go wrong... |
But the news conference, which came towards the end of four hours of talks, revealed a series of deep splits between Russia and Britain over the future of Iraq. Mr Putin said it was impossible to know whether the people who possessed weapons of mass destruction had been killed or whether they had just gone into hiding. "Perhaps their plan is to transfer these weapons to terrorist organisations," he said. "We simply do not know. Until we get answers to these questions we cannot feel safe and secure." Mr Putin insisted that the United Nations should be involved in the search for weapons of mass destruction. "If something is found there, some empty barrels, then the UN inspectors could be summoned," he said. The inspectors could be protected by "blue helmet" soldiers working for the UN. He even offered to send servicemen from Russia to help.
| Take the offer of troops. Let them wear Russian hats, though... |
Mr Putin said that he wanted UN sanctions against Iraq to remain in place until the weapons of mass destruction issue was resolved, despite appeals from President George W Bush that they be lifted. He also called for the Oil for Food programme to continue under United Nations control.
| Why? They need money to repair all those palaces? |
The Prime Minister, who was accompanied by his foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, in what were described as frank talks with Mr Putin, is opposed to the Russian position on most of these issues. In the hope of improving relations with Moscow, Mr Blair announced that Mr Putin would make a formal state visit to Britain at the end of June. He said it would be the first official state visit by a Russian leader since 1870. But otherwise the Prime Minister, who looked uncomfortable at the news conference in Mr Putin's official residence, struggled to find points of agreement. "Our soldiers, who have fought and died in respect to this war in Iraq, cannot simply hand over Iraq to the sole charge of the UN while coalition forces are on the ground," he said.
| Doesn't make any sense to me, either. We do the work and the UN reaps the benefit? Why? |
He also insisted that what happened in Iraq would be the "first test" of whether the strategic partnership he was calling for between the US, the EU and Russia could be made to work. "I think it can be made to work but it requires goodwill, real vision and an acceptance of the strategic partnership," he said. "The alternative is a world where we break up into different poles of power, rivalling one another."
| I think that's eventually coming. I don't think it's coming as fast as France expects it to come. And I'm not sure France is going to be one of the major players in the anti-U.S. pole. |
But Mr Putin suggested that he was not prepared to accept a world order in which countries always had to follow the US. "If decisions are being made by just one member of the international community and with other members being required just to subscribe to those decisions, that is something we would not find acceptable," he said.
Did anyone say that? I didn't hear it. You made your choice to defend Saddam, and you found yourself at odds with the US and her allies. That was your choice.
| Putin makes more sense than Chiraq does, though I think he's misinterpreting our position. At least I hope that's what's happening. There's a difference between differences of opinion and obstructionism. The feeling I've been getting is that Russia and Germany disagreed with the U.S. stance, but insofar as they could, they maintained a sort of neutrality between the U.S. and Iraq, except where they saw themselves protecting their interests. Chiraq actively took Sammy's side and acted as his ally, while professing to be ours. That's just my impression, from all that's gone on in the past six months, and I don't have access to the classified data to back that position up — but I think the press accounts support it. That's why I think the U.S./Britain and Germany/Russia will achieve a rapprochment, while relations between us and France and the mini-Frances will worsen. |
Posted by: Bulldog 2003-04-30 |
