US to offer final proposal to France

[Timber Loftis]

The coolest thing about these debates was at the end - when Israel and Palestine got jiggy with each other. Check out the last paragraph.

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 17 — The United States today offered France what it called a final proposal for a Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq, seeking to break a deadlock that threatened to paralyze the Council.

Council diplomats said the new American proposal included a serious offer of compromise in answer to France's demand for a second stage of debate and voting before the United States and its allies could go to war against President Saddam Hussein.

Britain, the United States' only ally so far in its campaign for military action against Baghdad, stepped in to try to bridge the persisting gap between Washington and Paris, assuring France and other wary Council members that London would insist on another round of "detailed discussions" before any military assault.

France did not immediately agree to the United States offer, and in a speech this afternoon before the Council, Ambassador Jean-David Levitte reiterated the two-stage proposal unchanged.

But French diplomats said they were more optimistic than they have been in weeks that a compromise could be reached.

In what appeared to be the last round of brinkmanship in hard negotiations that have dragged on for five weeks, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in New York today that Washington would insist on a single resolution that would spell out clearly that "if Iraq fails to abide by United Nations resolutions, there have to be consequences and action has to be taken."

But according to a Council diplomat familiar with the talks, the United States was prepared to give up a completely explicit authorization of the use of military force in the first resolution if it would not have to go back to the Council for a second vote, where other members with veto power could block American-led military action.

The intense diplomacy came on the second day of an unusual open debate on Iraq in the Council chambers that included both the 15 Council members and dozens of nonmember nations. In speech after speech, countries expressed an overwhelming consensus in favor of returning United Nations arms inspectors to Iraq to give Baghdad a last chance to give up its prohibited weapons and resolve the crisis peacefully.

Secretary Powell said the talks were "going well."

Russia, also speaking before the Council, questioned Washington's motives and sternly rejected any authorization of military action in advance of thorough weapons inspections.

"If we are not talking about inspections," said the Russian ambassador, Sergey Lavrov, "but about an attempt to use the Security Council to create a legal basis for the use of force or even for a regime change of a United Nations member state, then we see no way how the Security Council could give its consent to that."

Russia is a permanent, veto-bearing member of the Security Council, along with the United States, Britain, France and China.

The specific language that would be included in the American and British draft resolution is still under discussion, Council diplomats said. But Washington's proposal, prompted by an idea from Britain, was to include two new clauses. One of them would acknowledge the Council's option of meeting to consider a new resolution after the weapons inspectors have begun their work and report back on it, Bush administration officials said. The other new clause would threaten "consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate.

The administration's fear has been that if the inspectors do not report unambiguous arms violations by Iraq, the Council would fall to quibbling over the results, as it has in the past, and the United States would be further isolated in its drive to launch a war to oust Mr. Hussein.

Bush administration officials insisted that they had not retreated from their demand for immediate authority to use military force.

"The United States, in the presence of continued violations, new material breaches, will have the authority to do what we believe is necessary to protect our people and protect our friends," Secretary Powell said.

"Obviously, " he said, "the Council can always go off and have other discussions at any time it chooses."

Speaking before the Council today, the American ambassador, John D. Negroponte, said the United States would present its resolution formally "in the near future." American officials, seeking to raise the pressure as high as they could, suggested that the administration was prepared to proceed whether France agreed or not. Diplomats said the resolution could be adopted by the end of next week. The weapons inspectors would begin returning to Iraq about 10 days after that.

Secretary Powell met in New York today with Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations weapons inspections team. He also talked by telephone with Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov of Russia and the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin.

Mr. Ivanov said in Moscow that the new United States' proposal "takes into account our viewpoint."

Speaker after speaker in debate today echoed a call issued yesterday by Secretary General Kofi Annan for unity in confronting Iraq. Many nations also said they wanted the weapons inspectors to return to give Iraq a chance to come clean of any weapons of mass destruction, so the Council could lift the economic sanctions imposed in 1991.

Even Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador, felt forced to insist that "our first preference is a peaceful solution.

He said that whenever Mr. Blix or weapons inspectors reported that Iraq was not cooperating, Britain would insist on a new Council meeting to "hear the view" of other members.

Both Sir Jeremy and Secretary Powell pointedly avoided any reference to another Council vote. American officials argued that the new proposal would not give other veto-bearing Council members a chance to block American action down the line, but it would give them an opportunity to decide whether they would join a coalition to oust Mr. Hussein if he balked.

Today's debate ended unexpectedly in an acrimonious verbal confrontation between Israel and the Palestinian representative and other Arab envoys. The fight broke out after the Israeli ambassador, Yehuda Lancry, asked to rebut Arab charges that the Security Council had a double standard because it did not require the same compliance from Israel as from Iraq.

Mr. Lancry said Iraq was a "dictatorship, a serial violator of Council resolutions and human rights," compared with Israel, "a democracy put to the test of survival for decades."

[edit] oops, forgot my ciatation: Today's New York Times

[ 10-18-2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Charean]

There is that fine line of distinction. Other than that, Israel has been an friend of the US for a very long time.

I found this to go along with your story:

Why No UN Middle Road On Iraq?
By Michael J. Jordan | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

(2002-10-18) UNITED NATIONS - For a month, the debate over renewing UN weapons inspections of Iraq has essentially been between a US comply-or-else ultimatum and a French go-slow approach aimed at denying Washington a "green light" to use force.

No country has put forth "Plan C," a credible third option.

As other UN member states this week began weighing in, it's becoming clearer why not: The French seem to have consensus support.

"It would be inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter if the Security Council were to authorize the use of military force against Iraq at a time when Iraq has indicated its willingness to abide by the Security Council's resolution," South Africa's UN ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said Wednesday, at the outset of a two-day open forum in which non-Council member states spoke to the body about how to handle Iraq.

But, critics say, that depends what your definition of "abide" is. After a four-year hiatus, Iraq agreed on Sept. 16 to the "unconditional return" of weapons inspectors (though not to inspections themselves). But within days, Baghdad was erecting barriers. The latest, last week, were two letters sent to chief weapons inspector Hans Blix declining to confirm plans for returning inspectors that he reportedly made with Iraqi representatives earlier this month in Vienna.

Furor over the letters reportedly "irritated" both France and Russia - Iraq's strongest backers among the P5, the permanent, veto-bearing members of the Security Council - and seemed to strengthen the US hand for a tougher stance. But the French have continued to press for a two-stage resolution. The first phase would outline the new inspections regime; the second, if the Iraqis were deemed uncooperative, would consider the use of force. Consequences

Washington's supporters say that approach would drain new-found momentum to disarm Iraq. And if the past is any indicator, critics say, if Iraq obstructs inspectors, Baghdad's advocates on the Council will refuse to recognize its actions as non-compliance - and a trigger for the authorization of force.

With that in mind, US and British diplomats appear to be digging in their heels for a single resolution, one that threatens "serious consequences" if inspectors aren't granted full, unfettered access to any site. US negotiators reportedly offered last week to strike the threat to use "all necessary means" if Saddam Hussein doesn't cooperate. But Paris still objected to the bit about "consequences."

"Our belief is there has to be reference to consequences, or there will be no incentive for Saddam to comply," says one US official. "Bridging the differences of opinion is difficult going, but we're trying to work on language that will get us there."

Some critics suspect the US proposal is just a pretext for war. "It's overwhelmingly in US interests that the decision to take military action not be by the US and the US alone," says a European Council member. "If that responsibility is shared, it will win broader international support, have less negative repercussions in the region, and will give any successor government in Iraq far greater legitimacy."

Though neither the US, which drafted their resolution with British approval, nor the French have yet formally circulated their proposals among the 15-member Security Council, diplomats say the French resolution seems to be winning the support of Council members. But to become international law, it would need at least nine votes - and no veto from the P5.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said Wednesday, through a spokeswoman, that Council credibility may suffer if it does not "face its responsibilities" to, as the UN charter says, "maintain international peace and security." Plan C

Meanwhile, outside the world body a more radical idea is getting attention.

In its proposal "A New Approach: Coercive Inspections," the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggests a middle path between war and the resumption of ineffectual inspections: that a US-led military force of 40,000-plus troops escort weapons inspectors into Iraq.

Carnegie began peddling the proposal in early September when Bush administration hawks advocating "regime change" still had the upper hand. Its authors presented their ideas to top White House and Pentagon officials, and on Sept. 19, to the US House International Relations Committee. So far, though, only some US analysts and commentators - not world leaders and policymakers - are promoting it.

Still, "With all the incontrovertible risks of war with Iraq, any administration would have to think twice, three times, five times about going to war," says Carnegie President Jessica Mathews.

"But I also feel these weapons of mass destruction must be dealt with. So, the field ought to be open to a better idea."

© Copyright 2002, Christian Science Monitor

[Larry_OHF]

What ever happened to the good ol' days where...if you wanted to kick somebody's butt...you got on your horse and ran to thier house and proceeded with your plan.

[khazadman]

Well Larry, the way I see it, there's just too many sissies out there who worry too much about what the baddies think.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: What ever happened to the good ol' days where...if you wanted to kick somebody's butt...you got on your horse and ran to thier house and proceeded with your plan.

Um.... we realized somewhere along the way that "you" might be wrong or "you" might simply be an a**hole, so we made laws limiting what "you" could do whenever "you" damn well pleased.

Again, I'll point this out: when a country is so much more powerful than the others as the US is, the US either learns to be benevolent or becomes a big bully. Not that I don't sometimes yearn for those days myself, especially when I think I'm right and I couldn't give a &%*^* about what others think.

President Bush and the administration are no dummies about this. They will let the world's best lawyers, which are at their disposal, jockey for position with the UN so that when it's time to do it, we've crossed the i's and dotted the t's.

[skywalker]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: What ever happened to the good ol' days where...if you wanted to kick somebody's butt...you got on your horse and ran to thier house and proceeded with your plan.

We became civilized?

Mark

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: What ever happened to the good ol' days where...if you wanted to kick somebody's butt...you got on your horse and ran to thier house and proceeded with your plan.

Those days would still be around if it wasn't for those damned infernal yankees winning the civil war!