| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Text: Iraq ’failed to take final opportunity’ |
| 2003-02-24 |
| The latest resolution on Iraq to be introduced to the U.N. Security Council on Monday will not contain benchmarks or set a deadline for Iraq to comply, officials tell CNN. Rather, it will have two "operative paragraphs" concluding that Iraq has "failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441," according to a senior administration official who read aloud some of the text to CNN. Several officials confirmed the resolution, a short one-page document, will not explicitly authorize military force against Iraq. It will, however, recall that previous resolutions in which false statements or omissions "would constitute a material breach" and that failure to take the final opportunity to comply would result in "serious consequences," the officials said. In addition, the resolution will state the Security Council "decides to remain seized of the matter," diplomatic parlance indicating the matter remains open to further action that could include military force. "This is British language," said one senior administration official, who said the only reason the United States is going forward with another resolution is that "the Brits want a second resolution." Another U.S. official said the United States "is in the process of notifying Security Council capitals" what will be in the resolution, which is to be introduced Monday at a council meeting. The French are strongly opposed to another resolution at this time and are expected to introduce a "non-paper" to the council Monday calling for more inspectors and inspections. The United States and Britain recognize they do not have the nine out of 15 votes to pass another resolution, and face possibility the French, Russians and Chinese could veto it. Nevertheless, one senior official bluntly stated, "You gotta start somewhere," and this text "gets the ball rolling." One of the reasons the United States and Britain decided to introduce their resolution Monday -- before securing the needed votes ensuring its passage -- was a procedural one. Formally tabling its text-- or putting it "in blue"-- gives the United States and Britain priority over text introduced later by another council member. It also allows the United States and Britain to call for a vote in 24 hours. For the next couple of weeks the Bush and Blair administrations will be engaged in high-stakes diplomacy as they lobby council members for the necessary votes. One official familiar with Powell's thinking said he "thinks the United States will get Bulgaria, Spain and the Africans" (three African states -- Cameroon, Guinea, Angola -- hold rotating seats on the council). That would leave three other nonpermanent members of the council -- Mexico, Chile and Pakistan -- up for grabs. Forget about Pakistan, don't know about Chile, and we'll see if Mexico remembers who their friends are. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #4 What would be nice is if the INS were to begin rounding up and deporting Mexican illegal aliens as a result of Fox's actions. Come to think of it, the INS should round up and deport Mexican illegals REGARDLESS of what Fox thinks or does. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-02-24 16:05:35 |
| #3 Yup, Fox can forget about being invited to the ranch, again. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-02-24 14:56:59 |
| #2 Hard to believe Chile and Mexico would go against the US. Isn't the US working on a free trade agreement with Chile? can't see that happening if Chile votes no. And Mexico has a lot of things it would like from the US that would be hurt by a no vote |
| Posted by: AWW 2003-02-24 14:44:13 |
| #1 Chile may have its own ideas about the quality of "regime change" instigated by the U.S. Does Pinochet 1973 ring a bell? The Allende government may have been leftist but it was democratically elected. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-02-24 13:52:24 |