| Submit your comments on this article |
| Axis of Evil |
| WaPo: Surrendermonkeys vow to block Iraq attack resolution in UNSC |
| 2003-01-21 |
| UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 20 -- France suggested today it would wage a major diplomatic fight, including possible use of its veto power, to prevent the U.N. Security Council from passing a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. France's opposition to a war, emphatically delivered here by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, is a major blow for the Bush administration, which has begun pouring tens of thousands of troops into the Persian Gulf in preparation for a military conflict this spring. The administration had hoped to mark the final phase in its confrontation with Iraq when U.N. weapons inspectors deliver a progress report Monday. But in a diplomatic version of an ambush, France and other countries used a high-level Security Council meeting on terrorism to lay down their markers for the debate that will commence next week on the inspectors' report. Russia and China, which have veto power, and Germany, which will chair the Security Council in February, also signaled today they were willing to let the inspections continue for months. Only Britain appeared to openly support the U.S. position that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has thwarted effective inspections. "If war is the only way to resolve this problem, we are going down a dead end," de Villepin told reporters. "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process." The United Nations, he said, should stay "on the path of cooperation. The other choice is to move forward out of impatience over a situation in Iraq to move towards military intervention. We believe that today nothing justifies envisaging military action." Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in the face of such comments, departed from his prepared text on terrorism and implored his colleagues to remember that the Security Council resolution passed unanimously Nov. 8 gave Iraq "a last chance" to meet its obligations. "We must not shrink from our duties and our responsibilities when the material comes before us next week," Powell said. He used a variation of the phrase "must not shrink" three more times as he addressed the council. During the weeks of debate on the Iraq resolution, French officials had indicated they were open to some sort of military intervention if Iraq did not comply. But now the French appear to have set much higher hurdles for support. Rising opposition to war, particularly in France, appears to have played a role in the hardening positions on the Security Council. Foreign officials are also aware of polls in the United States suggesting that support for a war drops dramatically if the Bush administration does not have U.N. approval. While the United Nations was debating today, U.S. military officials announced that the Army is sending a force of about 37,000 soldiers, spearheaded by the Texas-based 4th Infantry Division, to the Persian Gulf region. It is the largest ground force identified among an estimated 125,000 U.S. troops ordered to deploy since Christmas Eve, the Associated Press reported. At the United Nations, several foreign ministers said a war in Iraq would spawn more terrorist acts around the globe and, in the words of Germany's Joschka Fischer, have "disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability." "Terrorism is far from being crushed," said Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. "We must be careful not to take unilateral steps that might threaten the unity of the entire [anti-]terrorism coalition. In this context we are strictly in favor of a political settlement of the situation revolving around Iraq." Powell replied: "We cannot fail to take the action that may be necessary because we are afraid of what others might do. We cannot be shocked into impotence because we are afraid of the difficult choices that are ahead of us." But when the foreign ministers emerged from the council debate and addressed reporters, it appeared that Powell's pleas had made little impact. Although President Bush said last week he was "sick and tired of games and deception," Fischer said the inspections were a success. "Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground," Fischer said. "We think things are moving in the right direction, based on the efforts of the inspection team, and [they] should have all the time which is needed." Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said Monday's report should be regarded as a "new beginning" rather than an end to inspections. The chief weapons inspectors "have been talking about that there is more work to do in terms of the inspections and they need more time. I think we should respect their opinion and support their work." De Villepin, in a lengthy and at times theatrical news conference, was asked whether France would use its veto power to thwart Washington's campaign for quick action. He said France "will shoulder its responsibilities, faithful to the principles it has." France would never "associate ourselves with military intervention that is not supported by the international community," de Villepin added. "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution." France, as chair of the Security Council this month, had organized today's meeting on terrorism in part to draw attention to its contention that the Iraq situation has detracted from the more pressing need to confront international terrorism. De Villepin reacted coolly to suggestions, made by senior Bush administration officials Sunday, that Hussein and his top advisers be offered political asylum outside Iraq to avert a war. "The problem is something more difficult than a question of change of regime," he said. "Let us not be diverted from our objective. It is the disarmament of Iraq." U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan also indirectly criticized the prospect of war when he addressed the council on terrorism. "Any sacrifice of freedom or the rule of law within states -- or any generation of new disputes between states in the name of anti-terrorism -- is to hand the terrorists a victory that no act of theirs could possibly bring," he said, alluding to frequent U.S. assertions that the confrontation with Iraq is part of the larger war on terrorism. The only sign of support for the U.S. position came from its closest ally, Britain. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said "time was running out" for Hussein and his "cat and mouse" game. But Straw added that Britain preferred a U.N. resolution authorizing force. "Iraq has a responsibility now to avoid a conflict, to avoid a war," Powell told reporters. "There is no question that Iraq continues to misunderstand the seriousness of the position that it's in. "If the United Nations is going to be relevant," he added, "it has to take a firm stand." |
| Posted by:Bent Pyramid |
| #13 Den beste, as far as i can tell WANTS the UN to go under- on "jacksonian" grounds - he's positively salivating over it. While i dont think we we should hold our security hostage to the UNSC, i think the post-cold war UN is, on balance, a good thing, and that its collpase would be a cost to the United States. Of course its collapse would be an even bigger cost to France, and so it seems like both sides are playing chicken. France wants us to not go to war. We want to go to war with UN backing, (or at least with a wink). If we go to war with UN opposition, everybody loses. Its a question fo who will blink. Im also not sure about dne bestes view that Bush always turns it around with one speech. His UN speech in October didnt turn it around that far - thats how we ended up with res 1441, which still has enought holes for the French to try and squeak through. I think public diplomacy requires more than one speech every 4 months. I think we have a solid case on Iraq, and that we would be much further ahead on this if the admin was better at making it. I think we are paying or dubya's poor oratorical skills, and for the division in the admin, which largely results from - dare I say it - the intellectual weakness at the top. I HOPE to be proved wrong, but fear I won't be. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-01-22 09:58:00 |
| #12 --"Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."-- You first, what companies did business w/him, when, what did you supply him with for how long and how much? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-01-22 00:04:32 |
| #11 UN Inspectors' report on the 27th. State of the Union address on the 28th. Why don't we have this conversation again on the 29th? den Beste says it's standard Bush operating procedure: Let opponents have the floor unopposed initially. Let them get cocky and get way out into the looneysphere, making them easy targets. Then cut them off at the knees with a major speech that changes everything. SOTU last year featured Axis of Evil. This year, it could be Axing the Evil. |
| Posted by: Patrick 2003-01-21 21:48:40 |
| #10 Re: John's comments. The UN runs on money, lots of it. Who provides the lion's share? Let them run to Geneva or wherever. Let th French do their political manoevres and become King S--t. Let them finance the new headquarters. Either way, stay or go, they or Ted Turner can finance it, we need to stop putting good money down the drain, and that will put a stop to this BS. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-01-21 20:21:11 |
| #9 The French KNOW we do not have to go back to the UN. The French KNOW that we are going into Iraq. What the French are doing is positioning themselves on the world stage for the post Iraq UN. For making a stand now, they stand to gain in stature with the rest of the world. I think DenBestes analysis is a little extreme, but the general trend is apparent. The US is unilateral, the British are toadies for following GW, so who is going to "lead" the world in a multilateral fashion? My prediction: UN headquaters to Geneva in 2004. |
| Posted by: john 2003-01-21 19:29:37 |
| #8 Steve DenBeste indeed has an interesting angle. He also notes that if the French do veto, for all intents and purposes the U.N. is dead as a major political force against terrorism and malignant despots. They'll have shown that the U.N. can't be counted on even to enforce their own resolutions. The real wild card in this whole game will be the British Labour Party and Tony Blair. If France vetoes, and Blair decides that the Brits will still fight, I think there is at least a fair chance that the more anti-war militants in Labour would try to depose the PM, either through a quick party conference or a no-confidence vote in the House. That would be major trouble for us. Could we continue to mobilize and fight in Iraq if the Brits (by order of a new PM) suddenly backed out? Likewise, would Mr. Howard survive a similar situation in Australia? I share liberalhawk's concern about the Brits and Aussies. They're our true friends, and you don't want to hang your true friends out to dry. I'm getting worried; I expected the French to growl and frown a lot, and in the end lay down. It's beginning to look like they're serious about a veto. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-01-21 18:36:22 |
| #7 The French say there's no proof Iraq has failed to disarm or currently maintains WMD. What tune will we be hearing from the French after Allied Forces LOCATE that which they say doesn't exist? |
| Posted by: Mark 2003-01-21 18:30:54 |
| #6 Another Vichy government working in collaboration with a ruthless dictator. FDR didn't have problems running them over as the first act in the European Theater of Operations via Torch. Let's hope Bush doesn't either. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-01-21 16:01:48 |
| #5 what trouble me most is that when the French laid their ambush, Powell seemed taken by surprise, and and without a response. Now I know the admin could have deep plans that are not apparent(EG myabe we're not ready to go in till March anyway), but its starting to look like the Powell strategy of going through the UN, and compromising ont he first resolution, is not working. We're looking trapped. Unlike some others Im not sure we'll really go in with the UNSC against - i undestand the difference between multilateral and UNSC sanctioned, but I wonder if the Brits, Aussies, etc really have the nerve to go in without the UNSC. And if they dont, then it is pretty close to unilateral. Id be happier if I knew of a "plan B" will the admin share more intel??? will we recognize a provisional govt, so we can have a casus belli other than WMD? Im eager to see how this plays out the next two weeks |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-01-21 14:53:17 |
| #4 deBeste has an interesting take on this over at USS Clueless. Basically he suggests what would happen if France and Germany really had sold lots of nasty stuff to Iraq over the past decade and how they would react. Well their current reaction is very close to how they would react in that scenerio. |
| Posted by: anonymous 2003-01-21 12:45:59 |
| #3 The UN (aka The Psychotic Dictator's Club) has been blatantly irrelevant for years. It's a cold-war gas factory designed to *avoid* decisions and action, and it has utterly outlived it's purpose. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-01-21 11:29:33 |
| #2 Simplisme! Cut the cheese-eating surrender monkeys from any post-war work/oil and expose their contacts in supplying Saddam with WMD. Same goes for Joshka and Gerhard. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-01-21 10:26:00 |
| #1 Posturing. Bah. From "le canard enchainé" 01-15-03 (long-standing political/satirical weekly, 80 yrs and counting), off-the record quotes from Our Beloved President Jacques Chirac saying to his gvt cronies he doesn't plan on using his veto : "a veto from France wouldn't prevent the americans from going (to Irak). It wouldn't make war impossible. It would make it difficult", "Bush is determinated and in a hurry. Even if I do everything to prevent it, war will take place mid-february, late february at the latest",... Of course, Jacques may have changed his mind and willing to help his ex-friend Saddam... Plus, it's unsure USA will bo back to the UNSC before an intervention (only if the political situation is favorable, which is not certain), and if they do, France is probably going to abstain (like China and Russia ?) |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-01-21 07:15:46 |