EU says Iraq must Disarm Fully + Quickly

[Timber Loftis]

Chiraq, France's President, you will note, states there is NO NEED for further UN Resolution authorizing use of force in Iraq, and that France would oppose such a resolution should Bush/Blair present it. Well, at least their international lawyers agree with Bush's. But, France has political reasons for doing this. Even though it *is* authorized to use force under R.1441, the US is smart enough to know another resolution would put more validity in any action. France, on the other hand, is smart enough to try and avoid that further validation if it needs to.

P.S. - check the last paragraph. I did not know 10 countries (former USSR satellites) are slated to join the EU next year. Wow.

Okay, enough of my OpEd. Read on.

TODAY'S NYTIMES:

European Union Says Iraq Must Disarm Quickly and Fully
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

RUSSELS, Feb. 17 — The leaders of the 15 members of the European Union warned Iraq today that it must disarm "immediately and fully," but said that Europe wanted to achieve this disarmament peacefully and that war should be a last resort.

The European statement was issued at the end of an emergency summit meeting and after a weekend of huge demonstrations in several cities against war in Iraq. It appeared to represent an effort to paper over trans-Atlantic differences through firm demands on Saddam Hussein while maintaining a distinct European position dedicated to a peaceful outcome.

"War is not inevitable," the statement said. "Force should only be used as a last resort. It is for the Iraqi regime to end this crisis by complying with the demands of the Security Council."

"The Union's objective for Iraq remains full and effective disarmament," it said, adding: "We want to achieve this peacefully. It is clear that this is what the people of Europe want."

The European leaders did not approve a timetable for Iraqi disarmament and rejected a British proposal that the statement include the phrase "time is running out."

That phrase was rejected by Germany, which, together with France, has stood at the forefront of European resistance to the Bush administration's plans to disarm Iraq through force if necessary.

In a demonstration of the continued distance between Europe and the United States, President Jacques Chirac of France said that there was "no need" for a second United Nations resolution reinforcing the threat of force against Iraq, and that France would oppose one if the United States and Britain proposed it to the Security Council.

"Iraq must have no illusions," the Greek president, Costas Simitis, said tonight, summarizing the European declaration.

He added that "Iraq alone will be responsible for the serious consequences" if it continued to defy United Nations resolutions.

The phrase "serious consequences" is widely viewed as meaning military force. It appears at the end of Security Council Resolution 1441, which last year provided arms inspectors with a strong mandate to return to Iraq and verify disarmament.

Differences between Europe and the United States over Iraq have become so acute in recent weeks that officials have expressed concern over the future of the NATO alliance. Today, European leaders seemed anxious to allay those fears, saying they were committed to "working with all our partners, especially the United States, for the disarmament of Iraq."

In its most forceful passage, the European statement said: "Baghdad should have no illusions. It must disarm and cooperate immediately and fully. Iraq has a final opportunity to resolve the crisis peacefully. The Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international community and does not take this last chance."

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who faces intense domestic opposition to his support for the Bush administration's war plans, insisted before the meeting that European leaders must show a united front with America as the best means of compelling Mr. Hussein to disarm.

The meeting today was intended in part to try to patch up the sharp disagreement among the Europeans that has left the goal of European unity in tatters. For months now, France and Germany have resisted American pressure to go to war with Iraq, while Britain, Italy, Spain and Denmark have expressed support for the American position.

That the meeting ended in a joint statement at all was something of a victory for many of the leaders who have been eager to heal the rifts caused by the Iraqi crisis and to speak in a single European voice.

Indeed, in the days leading up to the meeting today, many people in Europe, noting how deeply divided the union's member nations have been on Iraq, were doubtful that any agreement would be reached at all.

The next step in the complex diplomatic chess game being played concerning Iraq seems likely to come later this week, when the United States and Britain offer a resolution in the Security Council finding Iraq in "material breach" of Council resolutions, a formula for authorizing a military strike against the Hussein government.

But the European declaration that force should be only a "last resort" indicated that the two major European representatives on the Security Council, France and Germany, would actively resist the American and British move.

The statement seemed a careful balancing of the views that had badly divided the European Union.

On the one hand, it credited the American military buildup in the Persian Gulf with forcing Iraq to readmit the United Nations weapons inspection teams, which left the country in 1998. In what seemed a concession to the British desire for a timetable for Iraq disarmament, the statement also said, "Inspections cannot continue indefinitely in the absence of full Iraqi cooperation."

But the Europeans also called for the inspectors to have "the time and resources they need," reiterating what has become almost a mantra for the nations opposed to going to war, not only Germany and France but Russia and China, both of which have veto power on the Security Council. How much time that is was left unclear, but France has proposed that the chief weapons inspectors report back to the Council on March 14.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain said at a news conference after the joint declaration was released that the important question was not time for the inspectors but Iraqi compliance.

"If there is not active compliance, then no amount of time or more inspectors is going to change that reality of lack of compliance," he said.

Mr. Blair allowed that differences still existed among the European countries, but said, "There was a lot of common ground, and I have no doubt that many, many people around that table tonight were absolutely insistent that indeed, Saddam was in his final chance."

Not represented at the meeting today were 10 countries that are expected to become members of the European Union next year. Those countries, including most of the former satellites of the Soviet Union, all signed a statement of support for the United States position on Iraq two weeks ago

[Ronn_Bman]

Interesting stuff Timber, thanks for the read.

[Thoran]

Chiraq just blasted those "soon to be EU member" states, saying basically that they missed a chance to keep their pie-holes shut (and the implication is that it could somehow adversely affect their becoming EU members). For a guy who's been complaining about the (admittedly) heavy handed US tactics during this little spat, I find it ironic that he's using those exact same tactics without remorse when HE is the one in the advantageous position.

[Ronn_Bman]

Thoran said "pie-hole". I love that phrase but can rarely insert it into posts! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Thoran: Chiraq just blasted those "soon to be EU member" states, saying basically that they missed a chance to keep their pie-holes shut (and the implication is that it could somehow adversely affect their becoming EU members). For a guy who's been complaining about the (admittedly) heavy handed US tactics during this little spat, I find it ironic that he's using those exact same tactics without remorse when HE is the one in the advantageous position.

Chiraq is playing a high-stake game - and he's winning. So far France have gotten what it wanted - despite US/UK opposition.

BTW - the row over his statement continues. It has even been suggested that the statement will increase the chances of some of the prospective EU-members might vote no to joining in their referendum.

P.S. the new members are Estonia, Latvia, Lituania, Poland, Hungary, The Chech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cypres (Greek part) and Malta

[Night Stalker]

Chirac is playing dirty politics and nothing more. He would like France to be able to dictate terms as a World Power. Since they are not in a position to do that overtly, he uses subversive methods. Passive aggressivenes is IMO much worse than straight out aggression. Unabashed aggression is there in your face, plain to see. Passive aggression is insidious. He derides the US for using heavy handed politics to persuede and bully other nations and then uses those same tactics to get what he wants with what he considders lesser nations. While his position is anti war, he is not using peaceful non-aggressive ways of spreading that message. THis only re-enforces my view that he could care less for the people of Iraq and a war, rather is only concerned in economic intrests and power projection. That the flag he uses to bring these intrests forward is a peaceful one is only a matter of convienence.

Ghandi was a spokesman for Peace, M L King was a spokesman for Peace. Chirac is not.

EDIT: Quickly and Fully was twelve years ago BTW. "More time" is not needed, action on agreed resolutions is. Given Iraq's dismal history of candor and compliance, and the failure of previous inspection programs, I don't see how military action is not the solution. This is not a spur of the moment thing, jumping immediatly to war, this is a last result action. I really wish there were other options, but I don't see any.

EDIT: Note also France provides 20% of Iraqs military strength ... Said the Pot to the Kettle ....

[ 02-18-2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Hmmm, this got a different spin in the press over here, it has to be said. Basically it should be noted that whilst this says Iraq must disarm fully and immediately it doesn't say exactly when...

If you look at the statement it is apparently very carefully worded such that it can incorporate both the UK (pro-war) and France (anti-war), and all the positions in between without pissing anywone off. Basically this statement is a very clever fudge to make th EU seem united when it quite blatantly isn't. As always - its a collection of member states, its not originally supposed to have a common defense policy! I think its fairly natural that we see this kind of stuff happen.

[Night Stalker]

Barry, I agree completly ....

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Hmmm, this got a different spin in the press over here, it has to be said. Basically it should be noted that whilst this says Iraq must disarm fully and immediately it doesn't say exactly when... If you look at the statement it is apparently very carefully worded such that it can incorporate both the UK (pro-war) and France (anti-war), and all the positions in between without pissing anywone off. Basically this statement is a very clever fudge to make th EU seem united when it quite blatantly isn't.

Which is exactly why is says absolutely nothing of substance. He's beginning to look like a pantomime of Saddam: stall, delay, subvert, coerce, [img]graemlins/dancing.gif[/img] (step 2) stall, delay, subvert, coerce, [img]graemlins/dancing.gif[/img] (step 3) stall, delay, subvert, coerce - from the top now take it, altogether.... stall, delay, subvert, coerce. [img]graemlins/dance.gif[/img]
[img]graemlins/dancing.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dancing.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dancing.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dance.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dancing.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dancing.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dancing.gif[/img]

Of course, we can mold these useless words into something over time. International crap is always this way. "Sustainable Development" was a catch phrase that nations could agree on in treaty language. Well, once it got written in, folks like me started writing treatises about what it meant. Now, a definition is starting to take shape.

[ 02-18-2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]