I 100% agree with myvoice and George Bush on this one. It's better to be straightforward and upfront about enforcing US policy around the world. Using the UN as a cover when it clearly isn't UN policy being enforced is baloney.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *
Who said America needs UN approval?
G. Bush has already said that UN must stand along the US, or else step aside. So it has already been etched in as a unilateral move by the US. Now if the UN joins in, which it eventually will, thanks to hefty bullying and blackmail, that will provide america with the 'legitimacy' it needs.
When you are the sole superpower of the world, you can do anything. Vetos from the security council dont mean anything, let alone a vote.
[/QUOTE]
Thats what I was implying akif bhai... But even if they dont provide the legtimacy, they will not care, they will still attack...
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by OldLahori: *
US would not be going through all the discussion right now if it was "drunk on its prowess" and not caring about others opinions. The simple fact is that it cares a lot and hence it is negotiating, which unfortunately will get labeled "bribes, etc" as myvoice pointed out originally. The simple matter is that we do not have a working international system right now. UN is barely functiong. It is also clear that US can and must make decisions that affect the whole world. The international order is not designed for this type situation. UN was designed for a multipolar world and not a dominating single power. US has no interest in an empire, but without an appropriate international order that works it is difficult to get a consensus. One country one vote is ridiculous and would never work. The differences between US and the russians for example are minor. I agree with myvoice, russians are merely trying to negotiate commitments upfront. Morality has no place or basis in international relations! States and systems are not individuals and are not ruled by individual morality. The relations have to be based upon clearly defined interests. Dragging morality into how states behave merely clouds history and decision making. If US was not interested in working within international law, why would it be spending so much time trying to get other countries on board. US will not yield veto power to the UN security council when it comes to its interests. UN can be brought to a standstill by a veto from any one of its five permanent SC members. Look at Kashmir issue for example. What US is saying should be clearly understood: **Saddam has been yanking UN security council directives for the last 12 years and getting away with it.* After 9/11 US has decided that it is "suicidal" for it to allow Saddam to proceed with flouting the directives and arming itself. So if UN does not get serious about enforcing its directives by authorizing clear cut penalties then it should go the way of League of Nations!! If it is serious, then an unambiguous resolution should be passed. US would be extremely happy if the other members took it upon themselves to enforce the directives, and allowed it to sit this one out. The fact is that no one else has the capacity to enforce any directive without US.
[/QUOTE]
Whether Saddam is yanking SC is debatable, not because I or someone else thinks otherwise, but because all except two members of UNSC do not feel the need for a new SC resolution. Hence, lets not even go to the rediculous argument that US is all huffy and angry because UN resolutions have been violated.
Your other point is about morality. No we are not talking about individual morality as that is irrelevant. What I am talking about is collective sense of justice. This is enforced through international law. In the present situation, US is clearly oblivious of the need to present a factual and legal case for its grievances against Iraq. Reason: there are none. Getting hold of oil supplies and boost up domestic ratings are not accepted as bonafide reasons to attack another sovereign country (yet).
Since collective sense of justice is gradually being demolished within US, so this seems like the first step in the eventual fall of the empire. Loss of trusted allies around the globe is a clear indicator of things to come. International geo-political alliances are very rapidly forming. Just concluded elections in Germany, statements coming out of France and Canada and the finality of Russian and Chinese opposition are sign-posts of the growing isolation of world's only super power. Which is unfortunate. It was my belief, that having a sound and functioning democracy would mean an effective checks and balances system within the US decision-making. The current crisis has clearly demonstrated the fallacy of democracy. When Gephart is standing next to the President, endorsing the message of death and destruction for the Iraqi people, its clear that political motivations, false sense of patriotism and media pressure have carried the day.
Someone (an optimist, no doubt) was forecasting that as soon as the November elections are over, this furor will die down, cz it would have hopefully achieved its purpose (3 addl Senate seats for Republicans). Unfortunately, I don't share such optimism. 2004 is closer than we think, and re-election is the ultimate trophy which all Presidents want to collect. Bush Senior was denied this by one Mr Clinton. This one will stop at nothing to secure his legacy. Even if it means, death to thousands of innocents.
There is a recurring theme being expressed that a country’s foreign policy (at least the US’ foreign policy) should somehow be constrained or dictated by what the majority of other countries think. In my personal life, I have to make decisions based upon what I think is in the best interest of myself and my family. I may solicit the advise and opinions of my friends and neighbors, but I would never refrain from doing what I felt was in the best interest of my family because 7 out of 10 of my neighbors wouldn’t like it. I may not win a popularity contest by going forward, but that is just too bad.
At every level of our lives, there are different structural units that assume responsibility over the membership of some group. You start with the family unit where the parents are charged with the responsibility of making decisions in the best interest of the group. Then maybe you go to the neighborhood with a homeowners association having responsibility to decide what is in the best interests of the group. Then maybe you have a city government. Ultimately, the group under consideration is the entire populace of a country at which level the federal government has the responsibility of deciding what’s in the best interests of the group.
I can’t imagine anyone arguing that other families have a right to vote on what my family can do to promote my family’s interests. I can’t imagine anyone arguing that other homeowner’s associations ought to have a right to constrain the acts of my homeowner’s association in doing what’s right for me and my neighbors. I can’t imagine someone arguing that the city governments around the nation have a right to vote to decide what projects my city government approves.
Essentially, we pigeonhole things and determine which responsibilities and decisions fall within the ambit of each structural unit that we have created and accept in our lives. There is not now a structural unit that is recognized as a “Global Village” where countries have agreed to surrender their decision-making authority over issues regarding their prosperity, defense, peace, and self interests to the hands of others. The UN is NOT such an entity. And while the Have-nots of the world might agree to join such a Global Village, I can scarcely imagine the Haves of the world agreeing to do so.
The UN plays a role in trying to mediate differences between countries in the hopes of avoiding catastrophes including armed conflict. When it can’t avoid armed conflict, it can help to limit the scope of that conflict by again trying to find consensus positions. However, whether the UN can build a consensus is really irrelevant to the legitimacy of any country taking actions unilaterally and/or in unison with other like minded-nations outside the auspices of the UN.
Faisal: you are being unnecessarily harsh. As far as US being isolated internationally, I really do think you are reading way too much into that. Is it about oil? Ofcourse it is, and more. If it was not that additional more part, oil by itself would not be sufficient. It is just a fact that right now everything dovetails nicely and oil comes along with all the rest of the reasons.
Again, the fact is that Congress of the United States will authorise Bush to take action (as a last resort) if Saddam does not disarm. No games no excuses no ifs no buts. Palaces and all will have to be opened up and disarmament will have to be done. US does not want war, it wants Saddams’ desire to arm itself and provide arms to enemies of US interests gone. US knows that it cannot change the desire of Saddam, and so it wishes a regime change, but it will not go to war over that. However, if Saddam does not disarm and tries to play games to win time then US will use force. Saddam know that once he is disarmed he is likely going to get over thrown anyway, and hence his resistance. Saddam is no hero either for the Iraqis or for the muslims.
What is the difference between US position and the other members of the SC right now? No one is saying that Saddam has a right to arm itself. The others are saying that the existing resolutions are sufficient and send the Inspectors back under the old rules ( hundreds of acres and hundreds of buildings off limits because they are declared Palaces). And if Saddam does not comply, then another resolution will be passed threatening force, and then a third one authorizing force, etc. US position is that it is not interested in playing games anymore, because it does not believe it has the time on its side. Disarmament will take place and will take place within months. Give Saddam one month to reveal all his armaments so that they can be destroyed, and if he is found to by lying then necessary force will be used to disarm him. No bombs have to fall, no war has to take place, all people have to do is to convince Saddam to disarm verifiably. Period. The point is that that will happen one way or another. We can like it or we can lump it. As an american, when I read in todays papers that 9/11 was supposed to be only the 1st of the three planned phases of attacks on USA, and a terroist cell has been apprehended in Oregon, ( http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Terror-Arrests.html )believe me Bush’s no nonsense approach seems very reasonable to me. I don’t know how it can be more upfront straightforward and reasonable.
Myvoice,
I am glad u used to analogy of your own family, because that works so well to contradict all that US Administration is threatening to do.
Suppose you feel you are threatened by a guy living three blocks away. You say you have a right to defend your family, and so you take a shot-gun, walk over to the guy's house and shoot him. Guess what! You will be thrown in a jail. Because that is not how you are supposed to go about such things. You just took law in your own hands, and that is unacceptable. International law is similarly applied.
Another example, suppose, one house in your neighborhood is used by prostitutes. What you should do is to get together with your neighbors and work out the best strategy. Inform the city council and get that brothel closed down for zoning violations. You are not supposed to march up to that house and throw a hand-grenade there, because you felt that the brothel will cause loose morals in your family. If you do that, guess what... you are back in the locker. If all your neighbors say, "give up, buddy, we don't have a problem with these fellas. Its nothing urgent. Lets complain to the police and let them investigate". You say "hell no! whether you guys agree or not, I am gonna walk down there and throw the grenade anyway". Thats not the way it is.
I hope you get the drift. Long story short, I believe, and I have read/heard nothing to contradict this in the last 10 months, Iraq is not a clear and present danger to United States of America. No threats, no indication of terrorist acts, nothing. You hear President Bush making the case every day in his "fund-raisers". What does he say "Saddam can not be trusted. He has gassed his own people. He invaded his neighbors". None of the stuff happened yesterday. Its all old news. Then Pentagone goes ahead and shows a two-year old video of an Iraqi anti-aircraft gun firing at US war-planes. Then President Bush claims that he is after Saddam "because he tried to kill my daddy!" (and that was allegedly in 1991). It all makes me feel so sad, its not even funny.
OldLahori.
I have not felt strongly about many other issues recently, but this thing just frustrates me so much. Reading news-stories after news-stories. Reading you guys, I have always tried to keep an open mind to see what can possibly justify attacking Iraq. Make no mistake. I have no respect or love for Saddam. But the way US is acting is totally irresponsible and highly unfortunate. I would feel the same way, if US was trying to attack anyone. Panama, Colombia, any country. Why? Because innocent people will die.
I have no problems if US goes after Al-Qaida with its full might. Yes, they are a clear and present danger. They had launched a devastating attack on 9/11/01 and they are probably planning to launch more. May be still capable of launching more. Who knows. Yes, they are enemy. But Iraq has no link with Al-Qaida, Rumsfield's ramblings notwithstanding. Al-Qaida was formed on the basis of its opposition to Saddam. US is just trying to lump them together to rile up US people, who otherwise have no interest on deathly gasses being used on Kurdish people decades ago, or rich sheikhs of Kuwait forced out in 1990.
In my personal opinion, threatened US interest around the world is a balooney. Risk of attack on US allies is baseless. Aiding terrorists has no evidence. US hagemony over the world is under no threat. Oil interests is merely secondary and highly convenient (to keep intelligensia like some members here suitably happy from a moral stand-point). Primarily and evidently this is merely about domestic political gains.
Keep my words in your mind, and listen to President Bush on Monday night, and then tell me, hand to heart, does he present any evidence, any logical argument, why Iraq presents a clear and present danger to United States.
China should attack Taiwan
India and Pakistan should attack each other
Iran and Iraq should attack each other
Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia should all attack Israel (and vice versa)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
every country should attack the country/community/people which it fears could cause damage to it.
Faisal: I agree with almost everything you have written. International law is the treaties that nations agree to abide by; nothing more and nothing less. Your analogy with vigilante justice breaks down just at that point: there is no international law that prevents self defense. An embargo of Cuba in 1962 was an act of war. Cuba had not done anything to US. It was a fight between USSR and US. Again US is not acting Unilaterally although it is pointing out loud and clear that it reserves the right to do so if the world does not listen to it. Is there domestic politics involved. Probably to some extent. The right wing was close to a coup detat success with Clinton and when he ordered a cruise missile attack on Al-Qaeida in Afghanistan there was no end of criticism from the right how it was “wag the dog” scenario. So presidential decisions can never be free of politics. That is a given. Again, call me naive but I trust that the President is not going to war just because of politics. If he does and it is shown to be the case, I would urge impeachment and prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.
No one is claiming that Iraq is directly tied to Al-qida or has supported Al-qaida. Even Rumsfeld merely claims that Iraq has been in contact but no direct evidence that Iraq has supplied anything to Alqaida anything so far. The fact is that after 9/11 american psychology has changed. It is very important to grasp this fact. Something before last year that would have invoked ire and calls for embargo and penalties now calls for action and resolution. In my judgement the reasons to go for Saddam are manyfolds and all put togather require that US not delay in straightening the mess out. 12 years of embargoes, intelligent embargoes, etc. have not worked and the publicity war has been lost where killing of so many innocents Iraqis is thrown at US by everyone. As Lee Kwan Yew of singapore said it is important that the Iraqi venture is wrapped up quickly and it is important that Iraqi people are shown to be welcomming the liberators. US does not want to go to war. As powell said Saddam can avoid being ousted. But there is no negotiations anymore. Saddam has to disarm. No chemical, biological, or radiological wepon capabilities!!! US president cannot make any compromise on that… UN or no UN.
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/today/editor/opi3.htm
Here is the speech of the foreign minister of france. As you can see it truly is a quibble and not a fight with US’s position. US is just not in the mood to play the nice diplomatic games at present. US has never had the experience of colonizing other countries and hence does not play to their sensitivities. That is the epitomy of the western cowboy, but there you have it.
Faisal:
Analogies to families are good and it brings into focus the issues. Where your examples fall apart and highlight the issues is in finding the proper unit to which certain responsibilities are assigned. If I feel my family is threatened, the proper unit that has been given the responsibility for ending the threat is the local government through the police. The world community has never assigned the responsibility for protecting individual countries to any “world police force.” While there are courts that countries have, on occasion, given jurisdiction to deal with certain types of violations of International Law, such is not the case with national security, self-defense and a host of other issues. It is as if my family has been threatened and there is no police or governmental unit established to protect me against that threat. Under such circumstances, I would only have two courses of action: ignore the threat and hope nothing happened or take action that I felt best to protect my family.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is either (1) an agreed upon mechanism for the world community to protect a country from threats of others or (2) some provision under International Law that would preclude the US or any other country from taking unilateral action to protect itself from threats.
Myvoice. I am glad you are raising all these points, because it is also helping me clear up many of the unresolved questions about these issues. The examples you give are frightening because they violate everything about international law which we have held dear for the last 50 years.
Just to give you an example, in 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait because it claimed Kuwait is illegally stealing oil and thereby jeopardizing the financial and security interests of Iraq. By your reasoning (that no international mechanism is available) Iraq was justified in doing what it did to protect its own national interests. It was a superior power and had a right to do what it wanted. Then why the hue and cry? Why don't we agree to this irrational argument? Because this is simply not acceptable.
And unfortunate as it may seem, everything you say, seem to justify that any country in the world should be free to launch attacks and invasions into other countries if they feel their national interests are being threatened. US is not the whole world. It is part of the world community. You are an extremely experienced and reasonable person of law. Tell me, where will this disastrous course take us. Utter chaos. Thats where.
Each country of the world will be free to make such decisions by themselves. Are you willing to give the rulers of China the same rights vis a vis Taiwan? Can China unilaterally determine that Taiwan's policies are detrimental to Chinese security interests and thus they should start dropping bombs in Taipei? Is Russia allowed to make the same determination about Afghanistan and start dropping bombs there? Can Indonesia unilaterally decide that East Temor is a threat and deserves an invasion? Should Sudan be allowed to invade Ethiopia too? Should India threaten a regime change in Pakistan or it will launch missiles?
Chaos, as I said. This is disastrous. All world powers should fix the short-comings of UN, not to side-line it completely and mess up this world. We only have one world which we got to share with everyone.
Faisal:
Excellent comments. And, in part, your fears are well founded. Every country IS free to make a determination about whether they should launch an attack against another country in self-defense and/or to protect their national security.
Of course, that does not mean the rest of the world needs to sit back and agree with the attacking country's assessment that their war is one of self defense rather than a war of aggression. Obviously, no one agreed with Saddam's assessment when he invaded Kuwait and the world community chose to do something about it. The risk any country takes in moving unilaterally is that the rest of the world will disagree and do something about it.
Take an example that might be closer to home for you. If either India or Pakistan launches a military attack against the other (conventional or nuclear), you can bet your bottom dollar that the basis for the attack will be claims of self defense and national security. I don't think that either India or Pakistan should be expected to get the approval of the UN Security Council before they do what they perceive as necessary to protect their national interest. I can also guartantee you that neither would seek UN approval before launching an attack. Neither government would even consider giving up their own responsibility to protect their people to the majority opinion of UN member countries. I doubt you would be in favor of that either.
Yet, somehow you seem to think that the US ought to do just that. Whether a US attack on Iraq should be viewed as an illegal act of aggression or an appropriate use of force to defend our national security against a clear and present danger is largely a matter of opinion. As an American, I trust my government to make that determination much more than I trust the majority vote of the governments of Europe, Asia, Russia, China, South America, Africa, the Persian Gulf, etc. If you are not American, I can understand why you'd be more comfortable having someone else make the decision.
I will put it in simple words for you all to understand. Bush does not want the UN resolution. He requires it for international support. If the US was to attack Iraq on its own it would create alot of enemies in the EU. It has already done so by pressuring Egypt. Saudi Relations are pathetic. Iran well lets just say a country where Islam is appropriately implemented is a threat to the US, we all know the story. The rest of the players are two small. Pakistan is not a factor, as the CE is too busy trying to fix the economy, get the elections done without a massacre, India and the fundos. Pakistan is irrelevant to the issue.
**
[quote]
I think your notion that the US does not need to act within the auspices of the UN makes a mockery of what democracy stands for.. It will send out the wrong signal to other nations who will believe that they are free to act as they see fit and take military action against other nations or within their own borders.
[/quote]
**
Exactly. What Bush is gonna do is no different than what Saddam did to Iran and Kuwait. Bush will violate international laws and the norms of international society by attacking another soverign nation and its govt. To get legitmacy for that, the US and they Cow pat president need a UN resolution. 3 UNSC PM are against it yet the US forces it anyway. It shows the position the US is in.
It is isolated internationally on a majority of issues. It can not hold its own legally, morally or logically. This administration is made up of so many lone cowboys and idiots that they could make a western out of it. Simplt put the US needs a UNSC resolution of Legitmacy. That is what they want when they attack. So their warped sense of morality is fulfilled and they arent see as this centuries Tyrants. Remember a quality of a Tyrant was that it attacked nations and inforced its govt and will on the other nations people. It has happened in Afghanistan. It will happen in Iraq. I wonder who is next? Saudi or Iran?
Myvoice.
I am glad you read the post with much more comprehension than what I would have hoped from other more emotional members. The reasons for the fear and immense frustration are well-founded. As I said, much earlier in this discussion: History predicts the future. I am sure you have read history in much more detail than I have, and you would know the reasons for the fall of the greatest empires in the history. One reason which comes up again and again was an assumption of false righteousness and the fallacy that "We can do no wrong, and can do anything we want". Leave alone the great empires of Romans and Greeks, much closer to history you see the Third Reich. Too much power corrupts absolutely. You will agree to that.
Take a step back and analyze the words of US Administration in the last 5 months. While the arrogance was always there since 1945, this has taken a decidedly nefarious tone in the last five months. The reason for the cockiness is the immense military might. While this might be, losing sight of justice and fairplay will come home to roost. In my personal opinion, the fall of Soviet Union, will hurt USA far more than any other country. USA needed USSR to balance out world politics and keep a semblance of sanity in its policy. Being thrust into the role of the sole-superpower was a dicey preposition, and against all odds, USA too failed to maintain the balance. Democracy and the strong checks-and-balances system which were supposed to keep it from committing these mistakes have proven to be a failure. Anyone disagreeing with the Administration is instantly labled unpatriotic. To get your requisite certificate of patriotism you are required to agree to these policies, almost verbatim. Such a shame.
Coming back to the topic, you suggest that Iraq does present a clear and present danger. Please elaborate. In the example of India and Pakistan, the close proximaty lends itself to such a conclusion, incorrect it may be, but in case of Iraq and US, even that will prove to be prepostrous. Iraq has not been indicted for any acts of terrorism in the last 10 years. There has been nothing that Iraqis have done against US, except when US warplanes petrol over Iraqi skies to implement the UN resolutions. In short, there is nothing against Iraq, except a lot of old history of the times, when US was itself aiding and helping Saddam gas his people, fight Iran and quietly nodding to the plans to invade Kuwait.
Frighteningly, if you notice carefully, every single charge against Saddam brought by President Bush, could conceivably be brought against Pakistan too. You can claim, rightly or wrongly, that Pakistan killed its own people (Bengladeshis in 1970), invaded its neighbor (India in Kashmir - 1948 and 1965), exploded "unauthorized" nuclear weapons in 1998 and a host of other complaints. Interestingly, almost similar charges can easily be brought against historic acts committed by Israel, Egypt, Indonesia, UK and Japan. Infact, perhaps no country worth its salt in the world is free from such accusations.
Where do we draw the line?
Now that world opinion, is decidedly against expanding the conflict in Middle East, is against launching attacks on Iraq, is not in favor of hawkish US policies, suddenly in the eyes of US Administration, the UN has turned into a villain, an irrelevant force, a useless organization.
Could US precedent give impetus for any other country to invade, subdue and comprehensively alter the unpleasant realites of accused terrorist states without UN approval? This being undertaken for purely security reasons.
"Now that world opinion, is decidedly against expanding the conflict in Middle East, is against launching attacks on Iraq, is not in favor of hawkish US policies, suddenly in the eyes of US Administration, the UN has turned into a villain, an irrelevant force, a useless organization."
Now that is wishful thinking. 1) Read what the french foreign minister has written in Le Monde. He is not against going after Saddam. It is the timing that he is quibbling after. Bottom line: france gets billions of dollars of business from Saddam. They are worried that they will lose it to the Americans. They are right. Their share is going down.
Russians will get to take care of Georgia and will be assured of their cut in Iraq. Russians are on board. Chinese have all but said they are not interested and will go along with what USA wants. So I have no clue which news you are reading. UN will sanction and the SC will agree and within days. I will bet then most people on this forum will be saying how USA bullied them and blackmailed them and bribed them etc.
Old Lahori.
I'd rather not reduce this discussion to such mundane issues as trashing one news source against another, but Russian and Chinese opposition was on radio news here in US yesterday (no, I didn't get to read about it on Al-Jazeera or Jang) and the French statement is pasted somewhere on this forum. Russian opposition was so unequivocal that it was the headline news, and it said something like "Russia has finally declared that it will oppose any UN resolution calling for attacks on Iraq". I am sure you can search for it on the news website of your choice. China has also very clearly expressed its refusal to endorse any such resolution.
If you feel the above are incorrect, please guide me to the news source you are using. Thanks.
Sorry Faisal I should have included references. My apologies. Here is an article from Washington post. NYtimes is carrying a similar blurb. I am convinced that what we are looking at are postures for public consumption internal and external. Reality in my view is that the fat cats are arguing about how to carve the Iraq turkey. My reading is in simple unadorned terms, US has decided that the source of the trouble is Saudi Arabia and the petro dollars. The house of Saud is incapable of controlling the famous wahabbis of Saudi Arabia without an upheaval that would wrench the entire middle east. So before tackling that the Americans, Europeans, Russians and the Chinese have decided to secure the oil supplies of Iraq. Once that is done, then the house of Saud can go the way of the Shah of Iran, and the saudis can live under a theocracy like the Iranians have been doing for the last 22 years. If people cannot see that coming as plain as plain can be, then there is nothing one can say. With the russian, central asian, iraqi, and central american oil secured global economy will survive without any major shock to it as the Middle east sorts itself out. This is only one side of the equation of why Saddam has to go. The other side has to do with wepons and security, etc. So no matter how you look at it, it is in the interest of the Russians, Europeans, Americans, and the Chinese that Saddam goes. So he is toast. American forces pack their bags and leave the Hijaz one of the key demands of the Al-Qaida. Most of the Saudi princes will flee to Switzerland and other nice European resots with their billions like the shah did leaving the country behind impoverished and bankrupt with a phenomanal birth rate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45466-2002Oct4.html
Push for New Terms on Iraq Gains in U.N.
By Karen DeYoung and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 5, 2002; Page A17
Amid signs of modest progress in contentious negotiations over a new U.N. resolution sending weapons inspectors back to Iraq, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he was “optimistic as this week has gone by” that agreement can be reached.
“I am confident that we will find a way to resolve any differences that exist,” Powell said after a late afternoon meeting with chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix.
Both Powell and Blix said after their talks, which also included White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency responsible for monitoring nuclear programs, they agreed there was little point in returning the inspectors to Iraq until the U.N. Security Council decided on new terms governing the international assessment and dismantlement of Iraq’s programs for developing weapons of mass destruction.
Blix, who briefed the council Thursday on the results of his talks with Iraqi officials earlier in the week, said he “had the impression that in the council there was broad support for a new resolution.”
In New York, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan voiced his own agreement that inspectors should not return to Iraq until that resolution has been approved.
Although Powell told reporters he had expressed “full support” for Blix during their meeting, U.S. and diplomatic sources said that Blix expressed discomfort over several elements of a draft resolution being circulated by the United States and Britain among the other three permanent Security Council members – France, Russia and China. That resolution calls for tough new rules ordering Iraq to submit to inspections at “any time and any place,” and authorizes council member nations to use military force against Baghdad if it fails to cooperate.
Although sources said Blix strongly favors a new mandate that would remove Iraqi restrictions on inspections of a number of “sensitive sites,” he has questioned one provision declaring new, military-enforced “exclusion zones” where Iraqis would be forbidden to drive or overfly, and another allowing representatives of any Security Council member to accompany inspectors anywhere in Iraq at will, sources said.
A council diplomat said Blix has also objected to a U.S. proposal that inspectors be given the authority to take Iraqi scientists, government officials and their families out of the country for interviews. Blix, the diplomat said, believes “the U.N. shouldn’t be in the business of spiriting people out of the country.”
While negotiations over the inspections mandate continued here and at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S. and diplomatic sources reported some indications of movement toward resolving a more fundamental dispute among the five, including high-level talks between the United States and France.
France, Russia and China have rejected the inclusion of automatic “consequences” for Iraqi non-cooperation with new inspections, arguing that inspectors, whether under existing or new guidelines, should be given a chance to do their work and Iraq offered a final opportunity to make good on new offers to cooperate. France has said that a decision on the consequences of Iraqi failure should require a second, later resolution.
The Bush administration has maintained a hard-line insistence that Iraqi biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs pose an immediate threat to the United States and the rest of the world. Since Iraq has defied a decade’s worth of previous U.N. demands to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs, President Bush has said, any new resolution must have “teeth.” A separate resolution now before Congress and likely to be approved before the end of next week authorizes Bush to go to war against Iraq at virtually any time he sees fit, with or without U.N. approval.
Most of the rest of the world has said it would not support or participate in a unilaterally launched U.S. attack. Turkey, a NATO member that shares a border with Iraq and whose participation is considered vital to the success of any invasion of Iraq, said yesterday that it would only consider allowing its air bases or territory to be used for internationally authorized action.
In public statements issued yesterday in Paris and Moscow, those governments indicated no change in their opposition to the U.S. position, and sources said agreement, if it came at all, was still some time away. But French, British and U.S. sources said that a number of possible options for compromise were being explored. All center on a single resolution that would leave a clear threat of dire consequences intact, while removing, or at least making ambiguous, the automatic trigger for any member nation to use force.
One proposal among several under discussion called for a private agreement, along the lines of a “memorandum of understanding,” for the use of multilateral force in the event of Iraqi non-compliance with a new inspections regime. Such an understanding would allow France to say it had succeeded in excising the “automatic” trigger in the U.S. resolution.
“Our approach is not to compete with the American approach,” a French diplomat said. “What we hope, and what we are working for, is to have our ideas included in the American draft. . . . I can’t tell you that we’ve reached a compromise,” the diplomat said, but “there is a trend.” Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, newly appointed diplomatic counselor to French President Jacques Chirac, met here yesterday on Iraq with Rice, his U.S. counterpart.
According to some council diplomats, France’s position was being influenced by reports that China, whose President Jiang Zemin is due to visit Bush’s Texas ranch later this month, was beginning to lean toward a compromise, and that Russia was working on some new draft language to bridge gaps among the five permanent members.
While the administration was also sticking in public to its hard-line position on the automatic consequences provision, U.S. and diplomatic sources said there was room for negotiation.
Powell, who spoke yesterday with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and said he has been in “constant communication” with his Russian counterpart, Igor Ivanov, said yesterday that “I do understand the position of the French government and some other members of the Security Council . . . and we’re in consultations with them. We’ll try to find a way to resolve these points of view.”
Other senior members of the Bush administration, including Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other senior civilians at the Pentagon, have been less willing to talk in terms of “negotiations” with U.S. allies, and have expressed an unyielding position on the current wording of the draft resolution.
But based on Bush’s decision to work with the United Nations and the views expressed in the president’s Sept. 12 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Powell is said to be confident he is acting with Bush’s full support.
Lynch reported from the United Nations.
Thanks Old Lahori.
The article you posted very well documented everything I had posted above. Its clear that at the present moment, the majority of world's powers are opposed to launching attacks on Iraq.
By the way, I have often noticed that when an article moves from a direct quote from a named source, to "unnamed source in the foreign office", more often than not they are merely trying to pass off their personal opinion (and hopes) without raising the spectre of "Op-Ed". It is for this very reason that although I enjoy reading all these scoops by the journalists/reporters coming from "unnamed sources", I always take them with a great deal of salt. In the article above you will notice that all credible named quotes from Russia, China and France are opposed to attacking Iraq.
Just today in the San Jose Mercury News, they published a graphic representation of the countries who are supporting an attack on Iraq, compared to countries who are reluctant and those who are opposed. It shows three countries who are supporting the attack:
- USA
- Britain
- Israel
No one else. I tried to scan the graph for Gupshup. The results are not great, since there is a size limit and GS further reduces the quality.. anyway, here it is.
[thumb=A]worldopinion3.JPG[/thumb]
IMHO some interesting words (regarding the validity of a US war against Iraq) from a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, and a self-declared “registered member of the Republican party who voted for George Bush in the last presidential election”, as well as the chief of the concealment investigations team of UNSCOM, AND one whose military career includes services offered during Operation Desert Storm.
The constitution has always guided me in my actions as an American citizen. It establishes the US as a nation of laws, and sets high standards for the ideals we Americans strive to achieve as a nation. As an officer of Marines, I took an oath to defend the US constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is an oath I take very seriously and I am willing to give my life in defence of this document - something I demonstrated during my time in uniform, including service in Operation Desert Storm.
I am no pacifist, but I am opposed to President Bush’s rush towards war with Iraq this time around. As signatories to the UN charter, Americans have agreed to abide by a body of international law that explicitly governs the conditions under which nations may go to war. All require authority of the security council, either through an invocation of article 51 (self defence), or a resolution passed under chapter seven of the charter (collective security).
Source: Help us to stop the war, The Guardian