Third week running and still deadlock at the UN

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

I am surprised that not only France, Russia and China but (according to Kofi Annan), that the majority of UN Security Council members are holding out against the US, after weeks of American diplomatic bullying. Even the chief UN inspectors does not want to work under the proposed US rules, which id doubly significant.

Why does the USA not just listen to the overwhelming opinion of world opinion?

Iraq Deadlock in U.N. Persists, Despite Talks

As British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw visited Washington on Tuesday, key U.N. Security Council members were deadlocked for the third week on a resolution authorizing force against Iraq. Despite attempts at a compromise by the United States and France, which is leading the opposition to a U.S.-drafted measure, “We’re still stuck,” a key council diplomat said. France, which according to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan probably has a majority of the 15 council members on its side, wants the resolution to allow U.N. inspectors to test Iraq’s willingness to cooperate with stiff demands. If Baghdad does not comply, a second resolution would authorize force.

The United States wants authorization to use force in the first round. Alternatively, Washington might approve two resolutions if the first one gave it legal cover to use military force. “Then they can do what they like with the second,” one U.S. official said. Britain, which helped the United States draw up its resolution, would back two council votes on the use of force, providing requirements for Iraqi disarmament were tougher than those France has proposed, diplomats said. Straw was to confer in Washington with Secretary of State Colin Powell on the resolution after near daily telephone calls among foreign ministers of the five council members with veto power – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Both Russia and China have backed France. Washington has not formally introduced its draft yet, preferring to get approval from the five permanent members before tackling the other rotating 10 nations on the council.

A Security Council resolution needs a minimum of nine votes in favor and no veto for adoption. Annan said last week that most U.N. members prefer two resolutions. But one key diplomat believed nations may not be given such a simple choice, saying, “If the U.S. backs out of the whole thing, then people might think again.” All U.N. members will have an opportunity to speak on Wednesday, the first public debate on Iraq.

MAYBE NEXT WEEK

No deadline has been set for a vote in the Security Council but the strong show of support for the administration in the U.S. Congress last week appeared to have done little to speed up the negotiations. The United States hopes to introduce its resolution by late this week or early next week, but there was no sign of a breakthrough. “We cannot accept a strike that is not a last resort, a final resort,” French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said on Monday. “The United States is still shocked by the (Sept. 11) terrorist attacks, which leads them to base their strategic doctrine more on the pursuit of security than of peace.” Senior Pentagon civilian officials routinely dismiss the effectiveness of U.N. inspections, saying they can do little to uncover Iraq’s efforts to hide chemical or biological weapons.

***At the same time the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is reluctant to field teams under the ground rules the United States has proposed, according to diplomats he briefed after meeting with Powell and other U.S. officials. ***

2

Europeans? The same people who were sitting on Yugoslavia for 6 years and couldn’t have guts to stand up to the tyrants? And who came for their rescue? Perhaps France should worry about problems closed to home (e.g. N. Ireland and Chechnya) before worrying about Iraq.

3

Actually not just Europeans, according to the UN Secretary General, but a majority of the members of the UN Security Council. Asians, Africans, and possibly even states from your own backyard in the America’s. As for worrying about problems closer to home? How close to home is Iraq to the United States?

America standing up to tyrants. :hehe:. Was it not the not the American’s themselves who were quite famously supping with this very famous tyrant not to long ago? Remember Rumsfeld’s happy holidays to Baghdad?

4

Why is the concept of national interest so hard to comprehend. Just as Musharraf was supping with the Taliban and then did about face. US had strategic interests with Iraq and then they eroded. Do you hold the esteemed general in the same regard then I suppose?

5

Malik, since the article maintains that France is leading this ‘mental’ opposition (so called), therefore I said Europeans. May be an act of terror in Paris might make them think differently. Well, may be not. But Iraq is US’s problem (backyard) because it is a threat to American interests. You see, with being a Global Superpower comes the responsibility of treating everyone as you neighbor. While the French and the Germans were worried about truckers striker, US took the lead in Bosnia and later Kosovo. What did the French do? Only talk. So we can safely say that French like to be heard and no one takes them seriously, which is unfortunate.

Chaltahai, no Man. different strokes for different folks.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Malik, since the article maintains that France is leading this ‘mental’ opposition (so called), therefore I said Europeans. May be an act of terror in Paris might make them think differently. Well, may be not. But Iraq is US’s problem (backyard) because it is a threat to American interests.

[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that France has more influence on the majority(8 countries at least) of members of the UN Security Council, than even the United States? If that is so, then the US is fast losing its influence across the world not just in Europe, but in the America's. Africa and Asia.

Is Iraq a direct threat to the United States? If so does the FBI and CIA agree?

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
Why is the concept of national interest so hard to comprehend. Just as Musharraf was supping with the Taliban and then did about face. US had strategic interests with Iraq and then they eroded. Do you hold the esteemed general in the same regard then I suppose?
[/QUOTE]

I dont think its a case of National interest , many political analysts question why 'All of a sudden' does Bush want to attack Iraq?? There is no clear proof of WMD, there are no threats made by Iraq on its neighbours and the draconian sanctions are still in place. Why than is it in Bush's interest to attack Iraq, is it to do with taking control over Iraqs vast oil reserves which would do wonders for the US economy; Now facing a long term recession, it would also do wonders for the battered US stockmarket, with cheap oil guaranteed for decades to come. It could also be a campaign to gain popularity in the run up to the next presidential elections. With millions of Americans AGAINST an attack on Iraq, one must come to the conclusion that its all about oil and commercial interests.

8

Another article illustrating the unprecedented international opposition against the US war mongering.

America fails to woo key allies

AMERICA and its key allies were in open dispute over Iraq last night after President Bush warned the world that it could be held hostage by President Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. He faced a humiliating rebuff, however, from European leaders and from a growing majority of members of the United Nations, who are refusing to give America a mandate to use force against Iraq. Baghdad “will give up its weapons of mass destruction” or “the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm the regime”, Mr Bush insisted as he signed a congressional resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq. Directly addressing France, Russia and other sceptics, he continued: “If Iraq gains even greater destructive power, nations in the Middle East would face blackmail, intimidation or attack. Chaos in that region would be felt in Europe and beyond . . . Those who choose to live in denial may eventually be forced to live in fear.”

France, Italy and Russia publicly decried Washington’s sabre-rattling, while in New York a marathon two-day UN debate on Iraq opened with a string of countries coming out against the US position. President Chirac of France, which has spent a month resisting US demands for a UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force, said on a visit to Egypt: “War is the worst response a man could imagine. Everything must be done to avoid it.” Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, said after talks with President Putin in Moscow that Iraq “does not any longer have any weapons of mass destruction because they have all been eliminated”. Signor Berlusconi agreed with Mr Putin that any UN resolution should include no reference to the use of force. Yuri Fedotov, Moscow’s Deputy Foreign Minister, said America’s proposed UN resolution was “unacceptable and Russia cannot support it”. Iraq praised the French position. “We are proud of France’s friendship for the Arabs,” Ezzat Ibrahim, the Iraqi Vice-President, said.

British sources said they feared that unless the deadlock over a new resolution was broken soon Washington’s hawks would prevail on Mr Bush to give up on the UN and take unilateral action against Iraq. Mr Bush hinted as much when he said: “If any doubt our nation’s resolve, our determination, they would be unwise to test it.” Britain, which sees itself as a mediator, said that there was still time to find a compromise. Tony Blair told MPs: “I believe that we will achieve a consensus on this internationally and the reason for that is that most people, when they reflect upon it, do understand that weapons of mass destruction are an issue, do understand that it is not safe for the world to have chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons and do understand that the world community has got to make it clear that he’s got to be disarmed of those weapons. I hope that it is done through the UN, and that is what I am trying to achieve.” Mr Bush reiterated tough conditions that he wants in a new resolution. They included: the right of inspectors to visit any sites in Iraq; the right of inspectors to interview witnesses and their families outside the country; the end of persecution of Iraqi civilians; halting the illegal smuggling of oil; and accounting for more than 600 prisoners of war missing since the Gulf War.

America wants these conditions included in a new resolution that would allow the use of force if Baghdad did not comply. The only hint of a compromise came from Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, who told The Times that full access for inspectors was the US’s bottom line. He hinted, however, that the US could drop its request for armed guards to accompany inspectors and the right to send US officials to oversee inspections. He also tried to reassure wary allies that the US would not take automatic military action if Baghdad obstructed them. If the inspectors were prevented from doing their job “there’s going to be a discussion with the (Security) Council”, he said. State Department officials made clear, however, that General Powell intended to “get tough” with France. But his position did not soften attitudes at the UN. Dumisani Kumalo, ***the South African envoy, whose country is the head of the 114-nation Non-Aligned Movement, said that the UN should accept Baghdad’s offer to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq. ***

9

Dil, this should have done right when Iraq kicked out the inspectors. Since that time America was made aware that they are quite vulnerable and must seek out and eliminate threats, your right there is "no clear proof of WMD" but how could there be since inspectors were kicked out 4 years ago?

Inspectors were in Iraq because Saddam was deemed a threat, just because they were kicked out doesn’t make Saddam any less of a threat.

10

utd, why not let the UN Inspectors back in without any further delay. Let the experts see for themselves whether Iraq has wmd or not. The Bush administration should stop whining and accept what the International community has demanded, that the UN be allowed to continue its work in Iraq.

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Dil, this should have done right when Iraq kicked out the inspectors. Since that time America was made aware that they are quite vulnerable and must seek out and eliminate threats, your right there is "no clear proof of WMD" but how could there be since inspectors were kicked out 4 years ago?

Inspectors were in Iraq because Saddam was deemed a threat, just because they were kicked out doesn’t make Saddam any less of a threat.
[/QUOTE]

Correction. UN inspectors were not "kicked" out of Iraq on the formal orders of Iraqi government, but left themselves knowing full well that the US was about to attack. If the United States is so keen on getting inspectors back then why has it delayed their return since September when Iraq agreed to their return?

12

Correction. Iraq refused to comply with UN resolutions and interfered with monitoring functions that impaired the effectiveness of the inspection team.

The US delays because they do not want to play the same cat and mouse game Saddam played throughout the 1990's where he did not allow unfettered access.

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Correction. Iraq refused to comply with UN resolutions and interfered with monitoring functions that impaired the effectiveness of the inspection team.

[/QUOTE]

That does not amount to Iraq "kicking" them out. They left on the implied instructioons of the US, who had given them prior warning that they were going to bomb Iraq, which they did.

There is only country in the world now stopping the UN inspectors going back into Iraq - the USA.

14

Iraq has made promises before, a tough resolution is needed to show Iraq that this time there will be consequences, no more cat and mouse games.

This is what Colin Powell said after hearing Iraqs offer, "We have seen this game before. We will press for a resolution. If [the Iraqis] are serious, they will want one." I would agree with him.

Iraq has refused inspectors for the last 4 years, only after the threat of force has he seem to balk somewhat, now is not the time to take that threat away, it's the only thing that is working.

You may take Saddams word, but I don't, nor do I believe will the U.N.

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *

You may take Saddams word, but I don't, nor do I believe will the U.N.
[/QUOTE]

Practically every single member of the UN save for your British poodles, the Zionist entity, and possibly Micronesia want to give Iraq a chance, and let the inspectors back in. It is only the United States that is quite shamlessly delaying the return of UN inspectors, not Iraq or any other UN member. The USA.

16

And it is was the US who stood up against the Butcher of Baghdad as the rest of the UN (including Iraq's neighbors) shamelessly stood by as he gassed his own people and invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait. So why should the US expect anyone else to give a crap 10 years later and do anything?

17

utd, The International community REJECTED the 'Bush doctrine' which advocated a unilateral attack on Iraq.. Mr.Bush was ready to violate international laws in order to implement his policies over Iraq. Thankfully diplomacy and the resolve of key members of the Security Council have helped in isolating the Bush administrations position and they are now facing a humiliating climb down. So the current score is UN Diplomacy 1 Bush 0.

The UN must now be allowed to press forward in the deployment of UN inspectors in Iraq, there should not be any further delays in this regard.

18

** Lucky for N. Korea, they've got no oil **

19

How typical it is that (if) the US has backed down and given way to diplomacy as most here have advocated, they still get bashed for doing what you all consider the "right thing". Damed if you do, damned if you don't.

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
And it is was the US who stood up against the Butcher of Baghdad as the rest of the UN (including Iraq's neighbors) shamelessly stood by as he gassed his own people...
[/QUOTE]

Actually it was supping tea, and having samosa's and falafeel with the Butcher of Baghdad, knowing full well he was gassing people. Wanna see those cheesy pictures of good ole' Don lapping it up with bad old Sad? :)

Hypocrisy.