Swing Six States propose 45-day deadline for Iraq

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Very interesting move. We have the clear emergence of another front in the UN Security Council, with the third world states providing a united stance. Although a copromise between the US-UK and France-Russia positions, it would nevertheless stall moves towards war till at least the end of April at the earliest.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030311/wl_nm/iraq_un_undecideds_dc_1

U.N.'s Six Undecideds Offer Iraq 45-Day Ultimatum

The U.N. Security Council’s six undecided nations on the Iraq issue have proposed a 45-day deadline for Baghdad to demonstrate that it is fully meeting its disarmament obligations, Cameroon’s U.N. ambassador said on Tuesday. That would extend by more than a month an ultimatum of March 17 proposed earlier by the United States, Britain and Spain. But British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said he did not support an extension beyond the end of the month. “We have proposed 45 days, but this is open to negotiation,” Cameroon’s Martin Belinga-Eboutou told Reuters.

He said the six swing votes – Angola, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan in addition to Cameroon – had presented their ideas to Greenstock and were waiting for a reply. The six also proposed adding to the resolution a series of “benchmarks,” or specific disarmament demands for Iraq to meet to show it was complying with previous Security Council resolutions. Facing near certain defeat in the 15-nation council, the United States and Britain have delayed a vote – possibly until Thursday – on their draft resolution giving Iraq a March 17 ultimatum to cooperate on U.N. disarmament demands or face war. The Bush administration had talked of a vote as early as Tuesday, but France and Russia have threatened to veto the current draft, putting the six undecided nations in an influential position as at least nine “yes” votes are required for a resolution to be adopted.

2

US in backdown on Iraq war deadline](http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6115058%255E2,00.html) News Interactive

March 12, 2003

FACING almost certain defeat, the United States and Britain signalled overnight they would agree to a short extension of a deadline for Saddam Hussein to disarm or face war. A 45-day delay proposed by six swing council nations appeared out of the question, however. The Bush administration had talked of a vote as early as today, but with France and Russia threatening to veto the current draft resolution, and without the minimum nine “yes” votes, it held up action in the council.

The US campaign for votes suffered another blow when a spokesman for Pakistan’s ruling party said the country would abstain on the resolution.Azeem Chaudhry made the announcement as Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali appealed for Baghdad to be given more time to disarm, saying: “We do not want to see the destruction of the Iraqi people, the destruction of the country.”

3

March 18th is a full moon, it wouldn't be bright (no pun intended) to strike then. March 28th would make more sense.

4

Well Pakistan will be abstaining from voting right?

5

utd, Bush can take his deadlines and stick them into a trashcan. The world will NEVER be bullied into supporting an illegal/unjust war by an Adminstration whose only interested in the commercial rewards from setting up a puppet regime that would sell out Iraqs oil interests to US oil conglomerates.

6

Yes, Pakistan looks virtually set to abstain from voting.

Here’s something that just came in - perhaps it’s high time Blair re-think that ‘special relationship’.

US ready to fight ‘without UK’, BBC, 11 March 2003

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that America would be prepared to take military action against Iraq - with or without Britain. He told a press briefing that the US had alternative plans if the UK decides not to go to war with Iraq.

But Downing Street has expressed surprise at his remarks, insisting that if Saddam Hussein made the wrong moves, then Britain would be in at the front. In fact, it was made clear that rather than scaling down the UK’s involvement in the conflict, the opposite was happening. In recent days military planners have been talking about Britain’s “military contribution being greater than we thought”.

But Mr Rumsfeld said: "To the extent that they are able to participate - in the event that the President decides to use force - that would obviously be welcomed.

“To the extent they are not, there are work arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it.”

Asked if that meant the US would go to war without its “closest ally”, he added: “That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume.”

The comments will come as a blow to Tony Blair who says he is willing to work “night and day” to secure enough common ground among UN security council members for a second resolution.

7

Dil, I wouldn't want them to support an unjust war.

........................................................................................................

Rumsfelds remarks are baffling to say the least.

8

I guess I fail to see why anyone thinks Rumsfeld's remarks are all that remarkable or constitute a slap at the UK. He didn't say that Britain is not prepared to go to war with Iraq or anything like that. He just said we'd be prepared to fight Iraq with or without the UK.

I thought Bush made it pretty clear at his recent news conference that the he (Bush) will make his decision based upon what he views is in the best interest and the security interest of the American people. He further made it clear that he is not going to leave that decision up to Chirac, Putin or anyone else. Rumsfeld's comments are, to me, merely an extension of that. It doesn't sound like a slap at Blair or the UK to me. Anyone who thinks this constitutes some kind of a row between the US and UK is engaging in wishful thinking.

9

myvoice, his comments could be construed as arrogant. I don't see a postive coming from them but can see some negatives.

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
myvoice, his comments could be construed as arrogant. I don't see a postive coming from them but can see some negatives.
[/QUOTE]

Geez UTD. If "arrogant" were the worst thing people believed the US to be or believed the people in the administration were, we'd be in real good shape right now. Whether "arrogant" or not, I am pretty pleased to hear my president and the men around him make it clear that they will not let Chirac, Putin, Blair, the UN or any leader of any third world country decide whether my well being and security are at risk and, if they are, what steps the US is entitled to take to protect me.

For Blair in particular, I am quite sure that he is not choosing to send UK troops to Iraq to protect the American people. He is doing so to protect the British people. He sees Iraq as posing the same dangers to his people that Bush sees. As stated by Rumsfeld, the UK's support in any military venture is welcomed. The operative word is "welcomed" not "required."

11

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
**Anyone who thinks this constitutes some kind of a row between the US and UK is engaging in wishful thinking.
[/QUOTE]
*

Referring to me, perhaps:~) It's not a "row" per se. Perhaps, Rumsfeld should have indulged in a little forethought, as to what the consequences of his statements would be - it doesn't put Blair in a very positive spotlight. And i am referring to Blair here, not John Howard the Australian PM, or Chretien - Blair has put his neck out for the Bush administration; he even went so far as to state something along the lines of that he is willing to put his career on the line for this issue. When it comes to Iraq, the US is perceived of as possessing one critical ally - the UK. So for Mr. Rumsfeld to come out and state this - it sounds like a 'Hey we don't need your help, it's good if you offer it, if you don't we're not gonna lose any sleep over it - see ya'. It casts Blair in a slightly ridiculed light, particularly within the UK itself where public opinion already was against PM Blair.

The timing couldn't be worse either particularly, perhaps, since Blair is facing a potential Labour revolt within his own cabinet and many Labour MPs are uncomfortable with how closely Blair is toeing the official US line.

12

Yes that seems likely. That in effect the maximum yes votes the US can get is nine, but that means it has to win over all 5 of the undecided states. But to get those it will have to compromise big time on the deadline and acutal wording of the ultimatum to Iraq, and the US seems in no mood to do this as Rumsfeld’s timely comments about the UK role suggest.

13

Rumsfelids comments were uncalled for, hence the backtrack. Alienating those beside you is not a good idea.

…
Rumsfeld Backtracks on British War Role in Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday left open the possibility the United States might invade Iraq without the help of British forces, then quickly backtracked to quell the firestorm his remarks touched off.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12774-2003Mar11.html

14

I now think his intention was not to alienate the UK but rather to force it to make a decision to go with the US unilaterally i.e. without a second resolution if need be. In the next day or so I think it should be clear whether this ploy has worked, but as it stands the US is still failing to win the support of all the swing states it need - especially the Latin American countries. They are certainly not to impressed by the latest British ideas…

At the same time, initial reactions to the six tests seemed cautious at best. Chile, among six wavering countries that Britain and the US need for the resolution to pass, was said to be unhappy with the tests. It particularly disliked the requirement that President Saddam appear on television essentially to admit he has been lying for 12 years and expose his supposed weapons programmes. Mexico took a similar position.](http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=386546)

15

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
*

Referring to me, perhaps:~) It's not a "row" per se. Perhaps, Rumsfeld should have indulged in a little forethought, as to what the consequences of his statements would be - it doesn't put Blair in a very positive spotlight. And i am referring to Blair here, not John Howard the Australian PM, or Chretien - Blair has put his neck out for the Bush administration; he even went so far as to state something along the lines of that he is willing to put his career on the line for this issue. When it comes to Iraq, the US is perceived of as possessing one critical ally - the UK. So for Mr. Rumsfeld to come out and state this - it sounds like a 'Hey we don't need your help, it's good if you offer it, if you don't we're not gonna lose any sleep over it - see ya'. It casts Blair in a slightly ridiculed light, particularly within the UK itself where public opinion already was against PM Blair.

The timing couldn't be worse either particularly, perhaps, since Blair is facing a potential Labour revolt within his own cabinet and many Labour MPs are uncomfortable with how closely Blair is toeing the official US line.
[/QUOTE]

I don't particularly disagree with your analysis here Nadia. I think Rumsfeld was exactly saying "Hey we don't need your help, it's good if you offer it, if you don't we're not gonna lose any sleep over it" just as you suggested. And he said it within the context of the new language being bandied about by Blair for a new resolution.

For once, I am in agreement with Malik when he says, "I now think his intention was not to alienate the UK but rather to force it to make a decision to go with the US unilaterally i.e. without a second resolution if need be."

IMO, the US has not already invaded Iraq (at great harm to the US economy and markets and at great risk to Bush's own standing in the US) to accomodate Blair and help him politically. Rumsfeld is saying no more delay, the time has come. He is giving Blair a final nudge.

Again, IMO, Blair has gone to far to back away from assisting the US in its Iraq operations. The only hope for his political survival is a quick and successful war with Iraq that brings benefits to the Iraqi people and the region as a whole. If that happens, he will be Churchilian in stature and remain at the helm of British politics for a long time.

16

The only hope for his political survival is a quick and successful war with Iraq that brings benefits to the Iraqi people and the region as a whole.
At the risk of sounding cynical, i would say that’s a tall order.

An interesting article reverting to the original intent of this thread, as well as some advice to Dubya from his father.
African media on Iraq diplomacy, BBC

Gabonese Africa No 1 radio comments that “never before have three countries of the continent been so coveted as Guinea, Cameroon, and Angola”. “This is not because Western countries have suddenly become interested in the fate of these African countries or their people who are confronting various problems.”

Bush Sr. Warning Over Unilateral Action, Roland Watson, The Times [via GlobalPolicy.org website], 10 March 2003

17

You and I are in so much agreement today. :flower1:

Great things seldom come from small thinking. Great men are measured by their great accomplishments not their little ones. And leaders, by definition, should lead their people not follow them.

18

:konfused: Thanks for the flower, but - we are ?

Great men are measured by their great accomplishments not their little ones.
“Great men”… seems like an oxymoron in these times of Blair/Bush/Rumsfeld and all the other male politicians gung-ho for war. Great men do not achieve their accomplishments by causing great bloodshed.

And leaders, by definition, should lead their people not follow them.
Democratic leaders should also listen to what their people are telling them.

19

US-UK still failing miserably to win the support of any of the swing states on the UNSC, in fact the opposite is happening with some now coming out against the US-UK position.

In Santiago, Chile, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement after the council meeting ended in New York, saying: “Should a vote come tomorrow, we will not support it, we will reject it.”](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)

Also, I read today that Bulgaria which had previously come out in support of the US-UK-Spanish proposals has not co-sponsored their draft resolution, because of opposition at home. So in reality only three countries are actively pushing the US position i.e. the US, UK and Spain.

20

Hence the meeting in the Azores

Top on the agenda

  1. How to back-track from submitting the 2nd UN resolution
  2. How to justify the war whilst by-passing the UN
  3. What the hell is Spain doing in the coven?
  4. Should Tony get his teeth fixed before he's made to emmigrate to the US?
  5. Was the channel tunnel such a good idea and is there a way to plumb it in to the London sewage pipe newtwork.