| Submit your comments on this article |
| Axis of Evil |
| Cold feet get warmer in Europe |
| 2003-01-29 |
| Dead set in public against a strike on Iraq, veto-wielding Security Council members France and Russia are showing signs that they will go with the flow if it comes to war -- but Germany may have to stick with its "no". Surveys show public opposition to war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has hardened in Europe, including in Britain, Washington's closest ally. But analysts say there is an impetus pushing the waverers towards a conflict which is being generated, ironically, by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the very mechanism they hoped would stall the march to war. Don't you love it when a plan comes together? "Those who had doubts about this war are now constrained by the process which was launched in the Security Council," said Barry Posen at the Transatlantic Center in Brussels. "The Americans are essentially arguing law now: 'this was the resolution...we all agreed to it, we set up a series of hoops Saddam has to jump through and he's not doing it'." Just a dumb cowboy.... Resolution 1441 warns of "serious consequences" if Saddam does not give up alleged weapons of mass destruction. While France, Russia and Germany say U.N. weapons inspectors should have more time, Washington and London argue that since chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix has faulted Iraq for failing to cooperate actively with his mission it is already in breach of the resolution. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, U.S. President George W. Bush promised to deliver new intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programmes. It was an offer America's allies immediately welcomed because, analysts say, it might provide the "smoking gun" to justify a change of mind at home. Since it's now sunk in Bush isn't going to back down, they are desperately trying to find a way to save face. Russian President Vladimir Putin adopted a markedly sharper tone this week after Blix's report to the Security Council, warning that it could toughen its stance towards Iraq unless Baghdad allowed the inspectors to do their work. The Kommersant daily, in a commentary printed before Bush's address, said those comments showed Russia was prepared to bring its position closer in line with Washington. "This was yet more indirect evidence that in the event of a new vote on Iraq (authorising force), Moscow, as one of the Security Council's permanent five, has no intention of using its veto," it said. Didn't think so. Alexander Pikayev, an analyst at the Moscow office of the Carnegie Endowment think-tank, said Putin had confirmed Russia's position that it will not defend Saddam at any price and that he must fulfil the provisions of resolution 1441. "I think dialogue will go on within the Security Council, with a decision being taken next week. What will probably result will be a half-way resolution on military action which neither France nor Russia will block." China will abstain. The US and Britian vote yes. If France is gearing itself for the inevitable, though, it is doing it very carefully. Certainly it does not appear to be taking steps to join any attack. But it is widely believed that Paris would line up behind an unavoidable war in the end to protect both its interests in Iraq and the region and its ties with Washington. "In their statements, they always leave the back door a bit open, so they can swing around when and if they have to," one European diplomat in Paris said. The assumption among diplomats watching the French position evolve is that Paris will insist on a second resolution in the Security Council specifically authorising military force, but find a way of wording it to claim it has achieved its goals. Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was careful to include the time element last week when he declared: "We believe that, today, nothing justifies envisaging military action". "Tomorrow, who knows?" French officials reject suggestions that Paris is keeping its options open, but Villepin seemed to go further on Wednesday when he spoke for the first time about what would come after the possible defeat of Saddam Hussein. Most likely yes on a half-hearted vote of force. Abstain on a strong one. But German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose vocal opposition to a war with Iraq was credited with helping him narrowly win a second term in a general election last September, would find it hard to change course. He has toned down his anti-war rhetoric, but with his Social Democrats well behind in polls ahead of two important regional elections on Sunday, he has ruled out supporting any new Security Council resolution for a war. While Germany, which chairs the Security Council next month, could still theoretically abstain on any vote on military action, analysts say Schroeder has backed himself into a corner unless new U.S. evidence on Iraq's weapons is very convincing. "The only way out is if lots of weapons are discovered or links to a terror network," said Gero Neugebauer, a politics professor from Berlin's Free University. "The evidence must be watertight that Iraq is dangerous and has weapons that could threaten central Europe." "Schroeder has a credibility problem. His performance has not been good on the economy or creating jobs, so if he gives way on the peace question, he'd be finished," he said. He's finished anyway. Ignore him. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #10 mexico???? |
| Posted by: Raptor 2003-01-30 06:57:39 |
| #9 LiberalHawk, I'm hard-pressed to seeing Pakistan vote anything other than "yes". Perv is in up to his neck with us, and if he votes "no" on this, he's done for at home. The jihadis will become emboldened and he won't have us to turn to anymore. I think Perv will writhe some and vote "yes". Syria is lost. Germany is probably a "no" EVEN if we come in with the smoking gun -- Schroeder needs to keep the Greens and they're reflexively against the war. So we get U.S., U.K., Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Spain, Italy, Pakistan, ... ... and the wild card is Mexico. And they're making all sorts of worrying noises. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-01-29 22:49:45 |
| #8 Proposing financing and contracts is more efficient than twisting the arms. |
| Posted by: Sacha 2003-01-29 16:16:52 |
| #7 If the stakes are high enough, and evidently Bush believes they are, they'll release the info on Feb 5th. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-01-29 16:15:33 |
| #6 Syria and Pakistan may worry about US military action against them and vote yes. If the US cares, we can twist arms to get the votes. |
| Posted by: paj 2003-01-29 16:01:18 |
| #5 well of course we can go without the UNSC, as bush said last night; as long as UK is along thats probably multilateral enough to go ahead. But if we are discussing resolutions and UNSC votes, it is well to remember that avoiding a veto may not be enough to pass a resolution - if we want a resolution we may have to settle for a relativaly weak one, or else release alot of inof Feb 5 - at cost to sources and methods. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-01-29 16:00:28 |
| #4 We just bought Angola, Cameroon and Guinea's vote with the African AIDs program. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-01-29 15:43:40 |
| #3 What it will all come down to is this. On Feb 5 Powell will do his Adlai Stephenson imitation, show everybody the pictures and the intelligence, and then they all have an excuse to get with the program with their asses firmly covered. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-01-29 15:25:35 |
| #2 liberalhawk, you think that's going to stop us? If its voted down, that's the end of the UN. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-01-29 14:34:06 |
| #1 Note that we need 9 votes on the UNSC even if nobody vetoes. if france russia china abstain, germany, syria, pakistan vote no, we cant afford to lose a single remaining vote. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-01-29 13:55:44 |