U.S. Loses Patience with Security Council Delay

[Charean]

U.S. Loses Patience with Security Council Delay (2002-10-16)
By Jonathan Wright

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is losing patience with slow progress on a United Nations resolution demanding Iraqi disarmament, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

Secretary of State Colin Powell will "get tough" with France later in the day when he meets French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, one State Department official said.

France, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with veto power, has been leading resistance to a U.N. draft resolution which would give Washington the right to attack Iraq for the slightest failure to meet U.N. requirements.

Paris, with strong support among Security Council members and elsewhere, does not want the 15-member council to authorize an attack unless arms inspectors report back that Iraq has not complied with U.N. demands.

"Powell is going to get tough," said the State Department official, who asked not to be named.

Another Bush administration official said that the White House and the State Department were now agreed on a strategy and would give France what he called "one last shot."

"We will have one resolution that gives us the authority or we will not have any," the official said. Most U.N. diplomats expect a decision next week at the latest.

But at the same time, the United States is considering compromise language that would take into an account a report by U.N. weapons inspectors before resorting to military action, diplomats at the United Nations said.

The Bush administration has also shown willingness to drop provisions in its draft that would allow key council members to join U.N. inspections and have troops open any routes that may be barred to the arms experts, the envoys said.

The State Department had shown some flexibility toward the French proposal for two separate U.N. resolutions but the White House has now dug in its heels on a single resolution which Washington could interpret as authorizing an attack.

"There's a belief (in Washington) that there should be one firm resolution with clear triggering language. Patience is not going to last forever on this," an official said.

DRAWING THE LINE

Asked if the United States was moving closer to abandoning its attempt to work through the United Nations, he said: "Not at this point, but at some point we will have to decide which red line we can't budge on. We'll have to draw the line and say 'Beyond that we cannot accept."'

President Bush told the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 12 that it must enforce old U.N. resolutions against Iraq or else the United Nations would be irrelevant.

U.S. officials have repeatedly reserved the right to attack Iraq, with or without allies, if Bush decides that the Iraqi government is a threat to U.S. national security.

Even Britain, Washington's closest ally on the Security Council and a possible partner in a military campaign to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, would be willing to go along with the French position for the sake of consensus, diplomats at the United Nations said.

"The United States realizes it's good to have international support, but it's unclear whether they trust the council to deliver on what they want," one diplomat said. "International opinion is digging in against Washington."

In public, Bush has confined his remarks to rhetoric demanding Iraqi disarmament, without discussing the details of the U.N. resolution he wants from the council.

On Wednesday he said the only way Iraq can avoid war is to completely surrender its suspected weapons of mass destruction and allow inspectors access to any site in Iraq without delay.

"Hopefully, we can do this without military action," he said. "Yet if Iraq is to avoid military action by the international community, it has the obligation to prove compliance with all the world's demands."

Bush spoke in the White House East Room as he signed a congressional resolution giving him authority to wage war against Iraq if needed. The congressional stand has had little impact on U.N. negotiations.

The signing was a mere formality but the White House chose to hold a ceremony for it complete with scores of members of Congress and top Cabinet officers. Two key Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri were absent.

© Copyright 2002, Reuters

[Attalus]

There ya go. "Eventually, why not now?" Those gus'll drag their feet when it comes to any real action.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Charean: U.S. Loses Patience with Security Council Delay (2002-10-16)

I wonder how many times in the past half century this headline has appeared. Can anyone say "Kruschev" "Castro" and "Milosavec"?

In all honesty, it seems the US is willing to deal. When I first hear Bush's demands during his UN speech, and when I later saw the list of demands kept growing - I just knew for sure they would not be met. Here's the simplest negotiating trick - If you don't want to reach an agreement, simply demand more that you can ever reasonably get. But, lately it seems the US is being quite reasonable and even backing off. Saddam's just got a very simple problem: if he allows inspections, we'll find his weapons.

In related news:


WASHINGTON, DC—Amid growing concerns about the faltering stock market and deepening recession, President Bush vowed to tackle the nation's economic woes head-on Tuesday, assuring the American people that he "will not rest" until Saddam Hussein is removed from power.


Above: Bush addresses business leaders.
"Our nation's economy is struggling right now," said Bush, delivering the keynote address at the National Economic Forum. "Our manufacturing base is weak, new home sales are down, and unemployment is up. Millions of our people are suffering. That is why I stand before you tonight and make this promise: Saddam Hussein will be stopped."

With the Dow regularly suffering triple-digit plunges and the Nasdaq hitting a six-year low of 1184.94 late last month, Bush used the speech as an opportunity to outline his plan for getting the economy back on track.

"We can no longer turn a blind eye to our tumbling stock market and the disintegration of the retirement package of the American worker," Bush said. "That is why I have developed a 14-point plan for reviving America's economy. The first step is taking the biological and chemical weapons out of the hands of this madman. These sorts of weapons have no place in a peaceful world."

Turning to the problem of unemployment, Bush discussed his strategy for creating new jobs and stimulating growth in the tech sector.

"We're working hard to put Americans back to work," Bush said. "Our citizens are fighters, they just need the opportunity. And it is in this spirit that we are committed to defeating Saddam Hussein, so that the world may stand together in liberty and freedom."

Bush then addressed the issue of corporate malfeasance, promising sweeping reforms and a major crackdown on white-collar criminals.


Above: A Massillon, OH, department store closes while, around the globe, Hussein's reign of terror continues.
"Corrupt CEOs must be treated like any other criminal," Bush said. "The damage they do to this country, eroding investors' faith in our stock market and corporate institutions, is extremely serious. I would like to deliver a clear message to those who would bilk hardworking Americans out of their hard-earned 401K plans while greedily lining their own pockets: We cannot, and will not, sit idly by while this threat continues to mount in the Middle East. Iraq has stood in violation of U.N. resolutions since 1991 by refusing to allow weapons inspectors into the palace compound, where we suspect there are laboratories for creating weapons of mass destruction. We must remove the dictator Saddam Hussein and install a government that is committed to working toward free and democratic elections for the nation of Iraq."

Added Bush: "This man tried to kill my dad."

After the president's speech, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer issued a brief statement.

"As you have just heard, the president and this administration are fully committed to turning the economy around," Fleischer said. "We know how important it is for everyone to feel confident that their investment dollars are safe and that they will be able to build a better future for themselves and their children. We also know that what we really need to do at this time is to oust Saddam Hussein. Let's roll."

[Charean]

When Bush said:
"We can no longer turn a blind eye to our tumbling stock market and the disintegration of the retirement package of the American worker," Bush said. "That is why I have developed a 14-point plan for reviving America's economy. The first step is taking the biological and chemical weapons out of the hands of this madman. These sorts of weapons have no place in a peaceful world."

What is the 14-point plan? And what does getting Saddam out of office have to do with our economy? I am confused.

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry for the confusion. The post was a joke - see hahahah . It's from theonion.com.

The lack of an identifiable relationship between Saddam and the economy (arguably our very biggest national threat right now) is exactly what the article is playing upon - and the juxtaposition of the two in Bush's (fake) speech is hilarious.

[Thoran]

That sadly is hitting WAYYYY too close to the mark. I worry that he's more interested in distracting America from the many (and serious) problems at home by turning a relatively impotent Saddam into a Hitler V2.0

Ironically it's a tactic that Hitler himself used with great success during his rise to power. Pick a common enemy as a rallying point, play on the inherent xenophobia that all people have.

As Johnny Bravo is fond of saying when the Spit is about to hit the fan...
"This won't end well"

I consider myself a fairly conservative Republican, and I will not support the US going to war against Iraq unilaterally... no way no how. I don't want to live in a world where might makes right, and the UN has provide a (albeit beurocratic) viable means for keeping the peace, it should not be marginalized simply because we no longer have a opposing superpower to limit our options.

If he goes and does this, I expect he'll see anti-war demonstrations on the scale of Vietnam VERY quickly... inside the country. Outside the country I expect they're already queueing up at the back of the street, effigies in hand.

[ 10-17-2002, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Timber Loftis]

Actually, Thoran I have a "NO BUSH WAR" bumpersticker some protestors thrust upon me on my way into court the other day. We had a 3000+ protestor rally and march here in Chi-town. And, that's not counting those of us in suits who were huddled together standing off to the side watching the spectacle as a brief respite from otherwise dull days.

The worthlessness of action against Saddam bothers me. I don't like him, I have no problem with popping a cap in his ass just for fun, but it's a waste of time. N. Korea has nukes - duh. They're part of that infamous Axis (talk about your invocative terminology from history) aren't they? Didn't they just fire two long-range test rockets last winter from Korea - one impacting in the Pacific on either side of the island of Japan? I think Korea's "shot over the bow" last year plus their recent press releases regarding their bombs are some sort of strategy by them to either (1) "sneak in under the wire" while Saddam is on the plate or (2) challenge the U.S. with a "you gonna get us all?" type of approach.

India and Pakistan have nukes. Plus a fight over Kashmir. Plus starving people and a lack of clean water. Iran has nukes. The French have nukes, and God knows they're unhinged. ( joking! - don't flame! )

Get the picture. Yet one more unstable regime being a nuclear threat is not exactly "news" now is it? So, what's the point? Is it because of the region Saddam sits in and the instability crazy action on his part could cause? Maybe that's a good reason. But the fact that some dictator has weapons of mass destruction is either (1) not good cause for a war or (2) cause to fight wars against at least a dozen nations.

[Azred]

I know that Bush probably wants an international coalition to make sure that everyone is accepting of any attack against Iraq. However, all the talking is going to do is give Hussein a chance to fortify whatever defenses he has.
If you're going to go so far as to threaten to attack someone, you might as well attack, because otherwise you come off as simply blowing hot air and puffing out your chest. Useless bravado--it looks bad. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying "bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq right now". I am saying don't blab about it so much and expect anyone to actually pay attention. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of hearing about how we need to remove Saddam or that we are going to attack them someday. The old adage: strike while the iron is hot.