Facing almost certain defeat U.S./Britain delay vote on Iraq

[Rob-TheStormChaser]

Facing almost certain defeat, the United States and Britain delayed a vote to give Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to disarm and signaled they might compromise to try to win support from Security Council members who oppose a rush to war.

The Bush administration had talked of a vote as early as Tuesday, 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.

Instead, council members agreed to hold another open meeting on the Iraq crisis on Tuesday and Wednesday at the request of the Non-Aligned Movement, which represents about 115 mainly developing countries. Diplomats said it would likely delay a vote until Thursday at the earliest.

The open meeting will give nations from all parts of the world a chance to voice their views on an issue that has polarized the Security Council. It will also give supporters and opponents of the U.S.-backed resolution more time to lobby the half dozen undecided countries on the council.

President Bush conducted an urgent phone campaign aimed at seeking support from world leaders for a March 17 deadline on Iraq. He talked to a host of top officials from Japan, China, South Africa, Oman, Spain and Turkey.

In the anti-war camp, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin met Angola's leaders at the start of an African tour that will move to Guinea and Cameroon -- three important swing votes on the council.

Both the United States and Britain said they were willing to negotiate both the deadline and other changes to the resolution.

"We are busting a gut to see if we can get greater consensus in the council," said Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock. "We are examining whether a list of tests of Iraqi compliance would be a useful thing for the council. It doesn't mean there are any conclusions."

Several council nations complained that the March 17 deadline was too short for Iraq to demonstrate that it is disarming.

During a closed-door council meeting late Monday, diplomats said Greenstock suggested a two-phase approach to the draft resolution, which is cosponsored by the United States, Britain and Spain. Under the proposal, Saddam would have 10 days to prove that they have taken a "strategic decision" to disarm, which could be done with a series of tests or "benchmarks," council diplomats said.

If Iraq makes that decision, a second phase would begin with more time to verify Iraq's full disarmament, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"There is a two-stage process," Greenstock said. "One is to be convinced that Iraq is cooperating, the other is to disarm Iraq completely."

Security Council ambassadors said Greenstock made clear the timeline would still be the end of March -- meaning that the most time Iraq could hope to get would be about two weeks if the resolution passed this week.

Whether this slightly longer time frame for inspections is acceptable to the undecided nations -- Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan -- remains to be seen.

Pakistan's U.N. Ambassador Munir Akram said ambassadors from the six countries met Monday to search for a compromise and agreed to "explore the possibility of some sort of specific tasks which can be accomplished in a reasonable time."

Some countries suggested delaying the deadline by 30 or 45 days, Akram said, though it was clear that such a proposal stood no chance with the United States, as more than 250,000 American soldiers in the Persian Gulf are poised to attack.

French diplomats said the resolution would still mean authorizing war, which France is unwilling to do.

France and Russia announced Monday they would oppose the U.S.-backed resolution.

"No matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no,"' Chirac said in a televised interview in France. "There is no cause for war to achieve the objective that we fixed -- the disarmament of Iraq.

In Moscow, Russia's foreign minister Igor Ivanov said: "Russia will vote against this resolution."

Spain's U.N. Ambassador Inocencio Arias said his government didn't oppose giving more time for inspections.

"The vote will be the day we get nine or 10 votes, and I think we're getting close," he said.

But on the surface, at least, Monday was not a good day for supporters of the U.S.- backed draft.

Pakistan's prime minister said for the first time publicly that his country, a key swing vote on the council, wouldn't support war with Iraq. A spokesman for the ruling party later said this meant that Pakistan would abstain from voting. And Chile, another vote which Washington is after, suggested it is not prepared to embrace the resolution without changes.

The resolution -- which authorizes war anytime after March 17 unless Iraq proves before then that it has disarmed -- requires nine "yes" votes. Approval also requires that France, Russia and China withhold their vetoes -- either by abstaining or voting in favor.

The United States is assured the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico leaning heavily toward the U.S. position. But with Germany, Syria and now Pakistan preparing abstentions or "no" votes, Washington is left trying to canvass the support of Chile, Angola and Guinea.

If the resolution is defeated, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have said they would be prepared to go to war anyway.

[streetsoldier]

This is unmitigated, prime Grade A inspected B.S.; I can understand why the delay, as Tony Blair has already lost a Cabinet member over the issue and it may weaken his Government to the point of Labour not necessarily losing power, but a change of Prime Ministers...

...Simply laid out, we waited too long while observing the UN amenities ad infinitum. If this is not a clear call for the US to sever ties with this latter-day League of Nations, nothing is...

[cycloneye]

I am sorry to say this but the UN is a joke. The US now is trapped in that endless debate that will cause that the US troops will have to wait a while longer maybe until april when the temps get more hot.

[Derek Ortt]

Since its obvious nothing is going to happen, BRING THE TROOPS HOME. They should not be there just to give a meaningless warning to Saddam, that we won't even enforce anyways. Let them go abck to their friends and families

[j]

Derek....was that a "tongue in cheek" comment? Maybe its just too early in the morning for me to figure this out

[Derek Ortt]

Not tounge in cheek. If we aren't going to be fighting, there is no reason for them to be there. And as of late, I have seen no indications of iminent hostilities, only more delays and delays and extentions of the deadline

[rainstorm]

This is unmitigated, prime Grade A inspected B.S.; I can understand why the delay, as Tony Blair has already lost a Cabinet member over the issue and it may weaken his Government to the point of Labour not necessarily losing power, but a change of Prime Ministers...

...Simply laid out, we waited too long while observing the UN amenities ad infinitum. If this is not a clear call for the US to sever ties with this latter-day League of Nations, nothing is...

there will continue to be delays. does tough talk backed up by delays and vacillation simply serve to embolden our enemies? when will we stop groveling to the un? time for the president to put up or shut up. NOW!!

[wx247]

You can't just run them out there and expect them to immediately start fighting Derek. You have to build up troops. The delay from the Turkish Parliament is pretty much what is responsible for the wait. I think we will go to war...it is just a matter of when.

[mf_dolphin]

Since its obvious nothing is going to happen, BRING THE TROOPS HOME. They should not be there just to give a meaningless warning to Saddam, that we won't even enforce anyways. Let them go abck to their friends and families

Funny how you're the only one that sees this as being "obvious". Maybe you're looking at a different situation that the rest of the world.

[Derek Ortt]

The rest of the world thinks war is iminent? Lets see, France, Russia, Germany, China must not be a part of the world then. If war was iminent, there would not be all of these diplomatic pushes. Something is going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of that is casuing these delays.

Also, weren't you guaranteeing us war in February, MF dolphin while I was the only one saying no war in February. Lets all make predictions as to when the war will begin. I will start another thread on this topic

[j]

The rest of the world thinks war is iminent? Lets see, France, Russia, Germany, China must not be a part of the world then. If war was iminent, there would not be all of these diplomatic pushes. Something is going on behind the scenes thatwe are not aware of that is casuing these delays.

Also, weren't you guaranteeing us war in February, MF dolphin while I was the only one saying no war in Frbruary. Lets all make predictions as to when the war will begin. I will start another thread on this topic

ahem....I predicted the end of March

[Derek Ortt]

I stand corrected, Jay

[mf_dolphin]

I have said from the beginning the first to the middle of March. Check your facts Derek. You're the one that said " Since it's obvious nothing is going to happen..." You rant with no facts or logic. Maybe I would take you more serious if you showed some thought or reason.

While I do think we will go to war, the troops massed on his borders and the threat of war are the only things that might bring this to a peaceful solution.

[wx247]

Derek... why do you think it is obvious? What do you want to lay on the table to support this statement you made?

[Derek Ortt]

Tell you what, if war begins, I'll be here to accept my crow the day of the initial bombing raids

[wx247]

That is not what I asked. I am curious. I have a professor who says the same thing, but will never give me any reasoning beyond an assumption.

[mf_dolphin]

Derek, I have no problem with with you having an "no war" opinion it's just the way you make your statements. You make "statements of fact" and yet provide no supporting arguements or logic behind them.

How do you like your crow?

[rainstorm]

I have said from the beginning the first to the middle of March. Check your facts Derek. You're the one that said " Since it's obvious nothing is going to happen..." You rant with no facts or logic. Maybe I would take you more serious if you showed some thought or reason.

While I do think we will go to war, the troops massed on his borders and the threat of war are the only things that might bring this to a peaceful solution.

what i fear worst is that bush will allow saddam to go into comfy exhile where he can fund terrorism. unless we occupy iraq when saddam leaves then we will cause a civil war in iraq where terrorists can thrive. the die has been cast. unless we act, the consequences will be catastrophic

[Derek Ortt]

IMO, we are too sensitive to public opinion around the world. This is what I am seeing with the delays. We are trying to get international support, while we are actually losing it. This is one of my reasons for not being convinced that we will have a war, which I feel is essential for our long term national security. Saddam with WMD's could lead to attacks more worse than 9/11 and may embolden N Korea to take action as they would see us as bluster and no substance.


As for my crow, I prefer all meats rare

[Rob-TheStormChaser]

All I know is this: There's live rounds being put on these big guns now....theres also big people over there now, like Generals and high ranking officials, there's more deployments and also more training going on in our own country. I think the US is buying some time to regroup and make a last few efforts diplomatically before they HAVE to drop the hammer. We want Saddam to be aware our intentions NOW so that when his country is getting riddled with bombs in some night in the near future....he'll not even know what hit him.