U.S. TELLING COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WAR, UN VOTE OR NOT
Kevin | 25.02.2003 05:22
"You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not."
U.S. Officials Say U.N. Future At Stake in Vote
Bush Message Is That a War Is Inevitable, Diplomats Say
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 25, 2003; Page A01
As it launches an all-out lobbying campaign to gain United Nations approval, the Bush administration has begun to characterize the decision facing the Security Council not as whether there will be war against Iraq, but whether council members are willing to irrevocably destroy the world body's legitimacy by failing to follow the U.S. lead, senior U.S. and diplomatic sources said.
In meetings yesterday with senior officials in Moscow, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton told the Russian government that "we're going ahead," whether the council agrees or not, a senior administration official said. "The council's unity is at stake here."
A senior diplomat from another council member said his government had heard a similar message and was told not to anguish over whether to vote for war.
"You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not."
President Bush has continued to say he has not yet decided whether to go to war. But the message being conveyed in high-level contacts with other council governments is that a military attack on Iraq is inevitable, these officials and diplomats said. What they must determine, U.S. officials are telling these governments, is if their insistence that U.N. weapons inspections be given more time is worth the destruction of council credibility at a time of serious world upheaval.
"We're going to try to convince people that their responsibilities as members of the Security Council necessitate a vote that will strengthen the role of the council in international politics," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday. Rice mentioned North Korea and Iran as issues where "the international community has a lot of hard work to do. . . . And so we're going to try to convince people that the Security Council needs to be strong."
Iraq, Rice told reporters in a White House briefing, "is an important issue, a critically important issue for the United States. . . . So nobody should underestimate . . . the importance of America's resolve in getting this done."
The lobbying campaign went into full gear last weekend, as the administration prepared for yesterday's introduction by the United States, Britain and Spain of a new council resolution declaring Baghdad in violation of U.N. demands. Although the resolution does not specifically authorize the use of military force, it is understood among all council members that approval is tantamount to agreement on a war. The administration maintains such approval already exists in previous resolutions, but has bowed to the wishes of London and Madrid, its main council allies, who believe a new vote will quell massive antiwar feeling in their own countries. A number of other countries outside the council have said their support for war depends on a new resolution.
While the council will hear an updated assessment of inspections in Iraq by chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix on March 7, senior administration officials said that his report is largely immaterial to the vote-getting process. Now that the new resolution has been introduced, council rules say "we have the right to ask for a vote within 24 hours," an official said. Although it is likely to fall after Blix's report, the moment of choice will be based on the vote count and little else, the official said.
The administration holds out scant hope of repeating last fall's unanimous council tally, when all 15 members agreed to demand Iraq submit to a tough new weapons inspections regimen. Three of the five permanent members with veto power -- France, Russia and China -- have called for a war decision to be postponed while inspections continue. Of the 10 non-permanent members, only Spain and Bulgaria currently support the U.S. position; Syria and Germany are considered definite no's, and Pakistan either a no or an abstention.
All five of the others -- three in Africa and two in Latin America -- are crucial to obtaining the nine votes necessary for non-vetoed passage. Last weekend, Bush telephoned Mexican President Vicente Fox and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos to ask for their votes but received no firm commitment, officials said.
Bush telephoned Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos earlier this month, and Assistant Secretary of State Walter H. Kansteiner III last weekend began a tour of the capitals of Angola, Guinea and Cameroon.
For some, particularly among the key five non-permanent members, there are additional pressure points beyond an appeal to council unity. "They want support for the resolution," said a diplomat from one of the five. "They are not offering anything," or threatening reprisals, he said. "They are anticipating trouble if there is not support . . . [and] quietly sending the message that the United States would consider it an unfriendly act."
But another council diplomat said: "There is no mention of any sort of threat or pressure. None whatsoever." Instead, he said, "The conversation is very simple. There is a description of why they've presented a resolution, an objection to the piecemeal approach" of ongoing inspections, and insistence that "the council has to demonstrate that it is capable of taking decisions."
Even France, which has led the current council majority asking for more inspections, has repeatedly spoken of unity as the primary council goal. As it sets out to reverse a potential 11 to 4 vote against the new resolution, the administration is hoping that Paris will ultimately decline to be the spoiler and will opt for abstention.
"The argument the Americans are giving us," this diplomat said, "is 'if you support us, that will put pressure on France and they'll dare not apply a veto.' " And if France can be persuaded to abstain, several administration officials said they believe Russia and China will do the same.
Although the administration appears willing to declare victory with a 9 to 2 vote, with four abstentions, other council members said it would be a false victory. "Abstention will mean opposition, it will not mean support," a non-permanent council diplomat said. "If the decision to go to war with Iraq is adopted, it has to be adopted . . . with an important majority, including at least Russia and China, even if France doesn't want to go along."
"This idea of putting three members with veto power on the outside is not something that sounds much like unity," the diplomat said. "Are they going to declare the Security Council 'relevant' by virtue of submission by the smallest states?"
If a nine-vote, no-veto majority cannot be assured, the senior U.S. official said, the administration will make a "tactical decision" as to whether it is better to proceed to war with no vote at all.
Staff writer Mike Allen contributed to this report.
Bush Message Is That a War Is Inevitable, Diplomats Say
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 25, 2003; Page A01
As it launches an all-out lobbying campaign to gain United Nations approval, the Bush administration has begun to characterize the decision facing the Security Council not as whether there will be war against Iraq, but whether council members are willing to irrevocably destroy the world body's legitimacy by failing to follow the U.S. lead, senior U.S. and diplomatic sources said.
In meetings yesterday with senior officials in Moscow, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton told the Russian government that "we're going ahead," whether the council agrees or not, a senior administration official said. "The council's unity is at stake here."
A senior diplomat from another council member said his government had heard a similar message and was told not to anguish over whether to vote for war.
"You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not."
President Bush has continued to say he has not yet decided whether to go to war. But the message being conveyed in high-level contacts with other council governments is that a military attack on Iraq is inevitable, these officials and diplomats said. What they must determine, U.S. officials are telling these governments, is if their insistence that U.N. weapons inspections be given more time is worth the destruction of council credibility at a time of serious world upheaval.
"We're going to try to convince people that their responsibilities as members of the Security Council necessitate a vote that will strengthen the role of the council in international politics," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday. Rice mentioned North Korea and Iran as issues where "the international community has a lot of hard work to do. . . . And so we're going to try to convince people that the Security Council needs to be strong."
Iraq, Rice told reporters in a White House briefing, "is an important issue, a critically important issue for the United States. . . . So nobody should underestimate . . . the importance of America's resolve in getting this done."
The lobbying campaign went into full gear last weekend, as the administration prepared for yesterday's introduction by the United States, Britain and Spain of a new council resolution declaring Baghdad in violation of U.N. demands. Although the resolution does not specifically authorize the use of military force, it is understood among all council members that approval is tantamount to agreement on a war. The administration maintains such approval already exists in previous resolutions, but has bowed to the wishes of London and Madrid, its main council allies, who believe a new vote will quell massive antiwar feeling in their own countries. A number of other countries outside the council have said their support for war depends on a new resolution.
While the council will hear an updated assessment of inspections in Iraq by chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix on March 7, senior administration officials said that his report is largely immaterial to the vote-getting process. Now that the new resolution has been introduced, council rules say "we have the right to ask for a vote within 24 hours," an official said. Although it is likely to fall after Blix's report, the moment of choice will be based on the vote count and little else, the official said.
The administration holds out scant hope of repeating last fall's unanimous council tally, when all 15 members agreed to demand Iraq submit to a tough new weapons inspections regimen. Three of the five permanent members with veto power -- France, Russia and China -- have called for a war decision to be postponed while inspections continue. Of the 10 non-permanent members, only Spain and Bulgaria currently support the U.S. position; Syria and Germany are considered definite no's, and Pakistan either a no or an abstention.
All five of the others -- three in Africa and two in Latin America -- are crucial to obtaining the nine votes necessary for non-vetoed passage. Last weekend, Bush telephoned Mexican President Vicente Fox and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos to ask for their votes but received no firm commitment, officials said.
Bush telephoned Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos earlier this month, and Assistant Secretary of State Walter H. Kansteiner III last weekend began a tour of the capitals of Angola, Guinea and Cameroon.
For some, particularly among the key five non-permanent members, there are additional pressure points beyond an appeal to council unity. "They want support for the resolution," said a diplomat from one of the five. "They are not offering anything," or threatening reprisals, he said. "They are anticipating trouble if there is not support . . . [and] quietly sending the message that the United States would consider it an unfriendly act."
But another council diplomat said: "There is no mention of any sort of threat or pressure. None whatsoever." Instead, he said, "The conversation is very simple. There is a description of why they've presented a resolution, an objection to the piecemeal approach" of ongoing inspections, and insistence that "the council has to demonstrate that it is capable of taking decisions."
Even France, which has led the current council majority asking for more inspections, has repeatedly spoken of unity as the primary council goal. As it sets out to reverse a potential 11 to 4 vote against the new resolution, the administration is hoping that Paris will ultimately decline to be the spoiler and will opt for abstention.
"The argument the Americans are giving us," this diplomat said, "is 'if you support us, that will put pressure on France and they'll dare not apply a veto.' " And if France can be persuaded to abstain, several administration officials said they believe Russia and China will do the same.
Although the administration appears willing to declare victory with a 9 to 2 vote, with four abstentions, other council members said it would be a false victory. "Abstention will mean opposition, it will not mean support," a non-permanent council diplomat said. "If the decision to go to war with Iraq is adopted, it has to be adopted . . . with an important majority, including at least Russia and China, even if France doesn't want to go along."
"This idea of putting three members with veto power on the outside is not something that sounds much like unity," the diplomat said. "Are they going to declare the Security Council 'relevant' by virtue of submission by the smallest states?"
If a nine-vote, no-veto majority cannot be assured, the senior U.S. official said, the administration will make a "tactical decision" as to whether it is better to proceed to war with no vote at all.
Staff writer Mike Allen contributed to this report.
Kevin
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
U.S and allies ask U:N to affirm Iraq won't
25.02.2003 08:44
February 25, 2003
U.S. and Allies Ask U.N. to Affirm Iraq Won't Disarm
By FELICITY BARRINGER with DAVID E. SANGER
NITED NATIONS, Feb. 24 — The United States, Britain and Spain asked the Security Council today to declare that Iraq had missed its last chance to disarm to avoid a war. But France,
Russia and Germany moved to strengthen the United Nations inspections and give Saddam Hussein months more to show that he is complying.
The American ambassador to the United Nations, John D. Negroponte, told reporters after the session that he viewed the approach by those three nations with "deep skepticism," and senior Bush
administration officials predicted that the outcome would soon be either Mr. Hussein's exile or military action to disarm Iraq and topple his government.
The showdown that will center around the resolution introduced today will determine if a war to disarm and remove Mr. Hussein from power in Iraq will receive final approval from the United
Nations. Public opinion around the world has been running against an American-led war. In the United States, polls show a majority favoring war only with United Nations approval. [Texts, Page
A14.]
The French, Germans and Russians, in the document they released today, demanded at least four more months of weapons inspections in Iraq and stated that military force was not yet justified.
"The military option should only be a last resort," the document, referred to as a memorandum, said. It said conditions for resorting to force had not been met.
Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, dismissed the French approach tonight as "the worst of both worlds." She said it was tantamount to an admission that Mr. Hussein was
not complying with the resolution requiring him to disarm, while helping the Iraqi leader "alter and play with" the resolution's requirements.
Standing before a White House painting depicting Theodore Roosevelt on his charger, Ms. Rice added that unless Mr. Hussein left the country, "it is hard to imagine any other way — if he has failed
to voluntarily disarm — to disarm him except forcibly."
She said Mr. Bush, who was working just across the hall in the Oval Office as she spoke, was willing to wait until Hans Blix, one of two United Nations chief weapons inspectors, reports on Iraqi
compliance on March 7. She said she expected a vote on the resolution the following week, and other officials strongly hinted that military action could come immediately thereafter.
"It's time to deal with this problem," she concluded.
As the 15 ambassadors left the Security Council chambers this evening to begin consultations with their governments, it was clear that the group remained divided. But it was hard to determine
whether the British-American-Spanish coalition would be able to pick up the nine votes needed for Council approval of the resolution.
The French envoy, Jean-Marc de la Sablière said, "The time has not come to discuss a military option," adding that "it is a possibility to reach our goal" of disarming Iraq "with peaceful means." The
Russian ambassador, Sergey Lavrov, echoed that position, telling reporters, "We do not think the chance for a peaceful disarmament of Iraq has been lost."
The envoy from at least one undeclared nation indicated on Sunday that his main concern was seeing action by a united Security Council. "What we would like to see is the Council brought together on
an agreed approach," said Munir Akram, the Pakistani ambassador. He said the British envoy, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, had told the Council, "There is still time and the Security Council still has
control over the process."
But Sir Jeremy told reporters after the meeting that a "sword of Damocles" was hanging over Mr. Hussein and that "there is not much time left." He added, "I want to see this debate change in
character and see if the Security Council can stay in control of this dossier."
The new resolution, which fits on a single piece of office paper, has a one-sentence operative paragraph declaring that the Council "decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it
in Resolution 1441" — the resolution passed unanimously in November, after eight weeks of negotiations.
The proposed resolution also harks back to the authority of the United Nations' founding Charter, which provides, in Chapter Seven, that member nations "may take such action by air, sea or land
forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Passage by the 15-member Security Council can be blocked by a veto from any of the five permanent members, which include France and Russia. Six of the 10 elected members — Chile, Mexico,
Pakistan, Cameroon, Angola and Guinea — have indicated a preference for continuing inspections, but have not declared which side they are on. The British-Spanish-American coalition needs five of
those six votes to pass the resolution, assuming there is no veto.
Bulgaria, also an elected Council member, has consistently supported the United States. China, a permanent member, has been aligned with the French.
Before the discussion took place in the Council chambers, the weapons inspector, Mr. Blix, met with his expert advisory board and gave them a 170-page document reviewing the clusters of
disarmament issues yet to be resolved. That group is to resume discussions on Tuesday.
On Friday, Mr. Blix sent Baghdad a letter demanding that destruction of their entire stock of short-range Al Samoud 2 missiles begin by March 1.
In a three-hour interview with Dan Rather of CBS News, parts of which were to be broadcast Tuesday, Mr. Hussein said that none of its missiles violated the range limits set by the United Nations
and that "Iraq is allowed to prepare proper missiles and we are committed to that," an article on the CBS Web site said.
At the White House tonight, Ms. Rice waved off Mr. Hussein's arguments about whether he would comply with Mr. Blix's demands on the missiles. "I can absolutely predict" she said, that Mr.
Hussein will offer "a little cooperation in hopes that he can release the pressure." Then, she said, "he goes back to cheating and retreating and deceiving again."
She noted that the new resolution was constructed to recall many of the provisions that the Council adopted in November. More time to coax Iraq along, she said, would only allow Mr. Hussein to try
to "split the Council trying to play public opinion."
Before she spoke, other members of the Bush administration, moving beyond the prospect of military action against Iraq to dealing with its aftermath, said today that they expected to aid two million
displaced people and refugees once American forces were in the country.
They described how food, blankets, water and medicine have already been positioned on Iraq's borders.
The announcement at the White House appeared intended to respond to criticism by relief organizations that have charged that the Pentagon has not helped — and the Treasury Department has impeded
— their efforts to survey the needs of Iraqis.
Oh
Homepage:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/international/middleeast/25IRAQ.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=bottom
Alice in Wonderland
27.02.2003 02:35
If the UN Security Council actually falls for this upside down Alice in Wonderland logic then we will kkknow that they are truly irrelevant. On the one hand we are looking at world facism if the US goes it alone and on the other hand we are looking at world facism if they demolish Iraq with Security Council sanction. The US coup d'tait will have succeeded on a world scale (or hasn't it already???) is this just not a sideshow while they cut their deals? Hello Fourth Reich!!!
citizen xy