| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| No turning back for Britain or Blair |
| 2003-03-13 |
| TONY BLAIR prepared his party and country for war without further approval from the United Nations yesterday. He served notice that he would defy scores of Labour MPs and millions of voters as he dismissed the idea that America could go it alone. He said for the first time that Britain and America already had legal authority for attacking Iraq. And he implied that if the UN could not bring itself to enforce its will, others would have to do so. Within hours of Mr Blairâs remarks, there were strong indications that Britainâs struggle to win a majority in the Security Council for authorising war is close to failure â leaving war likely within days. Frantic attempts to persuade wavering countries were continuing last night and an American diplomat said that as many as seven Security Council members were backing the new resolution â two fewer than required. But it was clear that the battle could end with Britain, America and Spain walking away from the process rather than face humiliation if the resolution were put to a vote. As the word from New York became gloomier, the government machine braced the nation for diplomatic failure â and blamed the French. Mr Blair told a private meeting of Labourâs parliamentary committee that he was working flat out to win a Security Council majority, but that the signs were not good. President Chiracâs promise to veto the second resolution whatever the circumstances had made the task of America and Britain at the UN hugely difficult. He said it was hard to persuade the âswingâ countries that they should come on board when the French had said they were going to veto the resolution in any case and he said that it was illogical for France, having backed the original UN Resolution 1441, to veto its implementation. The arithmetic in New York appeared to be going against Mr Blair and President Bush. A senior British diplomat told The Times: âI fear that weâre not going to make it.â There were signs, however, that the mood in the Parliamentary Labour Party was beginning to shift in Mr Blairâs favour after an impassioned meeting at which the behaviour of hardline rebels calling for his removal was condemned. Mr Blair still faces the prospect of a rebellion even bigger than that of two weeks ago. In a Commons debate, probably on Monday, he will argue that he has worked as hard as humanly possible to secure a second resolution but was in the end thwarted by the âunreasonableâ behaviour of the French. Mr Blair is nevertheless determined that the UN process should be pursued to the end and yesterday Britain published a fresh set of tests for President Saddam Hussein that could be incorporated into a second resolution. Some diplomats said that although the outlook was bleak, it could be tomorrow or even Saturday before final failure was accepted. âSo long as there is any life flickering in this process he (Mr Blair) wants to carry on.â The new strategy appears to be that in the event of the second resolution failing to materialise, the allies will rely on the authority given by the original Resolution 1441 to go to war. UN experts pointed out that Britain and America would be better advised to walk away from a vote that was certain to fail because they would still have 1441, which promised âserious consequencesâ. That demanded a further meeting of the council but not another vote. Mr Blair left MPs in no doubt about his intentions should the diplomatic route fail. Despite Donald Rumsfeldâs suggestion that the US could go it alone, Mr Blair said that was not his intention. âThe reason why I believe it is important that we hold firm to the course we have set out is because what is at stake here isnât whether the US goes alone or not; it is whether the international community is prepared to back up the clear instruction it gave to Saddam Hussein with the necessary action,â he said. âThat is why I am determined we hold firm to the course we have set out.â A close associate of Mr Blair said: âSome people saw Rumsfeldâs words as an exit strategy for him. He was not looking for one.â In his most direct promise yet that he would go without the UN, he told a Tory MP: âIt would be a tragedy if the UN, when faced with this challenge, fails to meet it. We have to make sure that the unified will set out in 1441 is implemented.â Jack Straw acknowledged that Britain may have to abandon hopes of securing a new resolution before going to war, although he repeatedly refused to say at a Foreign Office news conference whether the draft resolution would be put to a vote. âWhat I guarantee is that we are working as hard as we possibly can to secure a second resolution,â he said. But his Spanish counterpart, Ana Palacio, openly accepted that the resolution may be withdrawn, citing the threat by President Chirac to wield the French veto âwhatever the circumstancesâ. Washington made clear that there was little time left for diplomacy. Delays at the Security Council had already cost vital time, senior Bush aides said. âWeâve lost ground in trying to find a diplomatic solution because the world has not spoken with one voice,â Condoleezza Rice, President Bushâs National Security Adviser, said. âThe Security Council needs to stand up, give him a very clear message that he needs to disarm, that he has days, not weeks, to disarm.â As Mr Bush maintained a breakneck diplomatic pace, his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said: âItâs become a worldwide phone call. You are seeing the final moments of action, or inaction, at the UN Security Council.â |
| Posted by:ISHMAIL |
| #6 I want to see the votes. I want to know which leaders have a grasp on reality. Abstaining is as good as a no vote this time. |
| Posted by: dc 2003-03-13 21:33:26 |
| #5 Dangerous days ahead. Looks like Iraq wants to disclose documents about the "destruction" of VX gas and anthrax. That's a central UN demand. Of course the inspectors will need time to "verify" the lies. Saddam gains time. You have to give him credit. The bastard is good at his game. Forget the resolution. Frankly I don't see how the U.S. can "win" the Security Council or world opinion right now. We might better roll tomorrow and in a few days the evidence of Iraq's WMD program will fly right in our face. Nothing we can do on the diplomatic front right now will win us friends. Lets get the job done and people will see why it was necessary to do it NOW. |
| Posted by: tcc 2003-03-13 18:04:11 |
| #4 No turning back? It looks like Bush and Bair are turning back every day. Every day we're told to wait longer while the US gets pissed on from all over the world. Bush is a bitch. |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-03-13 10:07:27 |
| #3 "Don't equate the Russians with the French here." I was willing to give Russia the benefit of the doubt, but not anymore. Since they know we're going in no matter what, there is no logical reason to use the veto, except to deliberately hurt us. I don't know why so many people want to give them an easy pass. |
| Posted by: cdw 2003-03-13 08:16:21 |
| #2 Jolly good show! The UN Charter is a normative, and not a binding legal document. In the Kosovo intervention, UN authority was secondary to OSCE Euro-norms. Prosecutions of war criminals have been enabled by what is referred to as "Statutes of the Tribunal." That is, the prosecuting parties make national law, allowing participation in the Tribunal. Sovereign authority is devolved, in a sense, but it is revocable at will. If the outside world is not importing common sense, then the exporters should leave them out of the arena of sound judgement. Don't equate the Russians with the French here. Russia has legitimate concerns about recovery of the 9 billion dollars that it is owed by Iraq. Those concerns will dissolve with a quick victory. As for the French, they are the scum-of-the-earth. |
| Posted by: Anonon 2003-03-13 03:10:02 |
| #1 Regrets, the link for the news immediately above is not working , but it is found at the following source : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-609297,00.html |
| Posted by: ISHMAIL 2003-03-13 02:55:49 |