See all the way at the bottom.... now we know another
reason why the US won't sign the ICC Treaty.
JDG
Bush Lobbies For Deal On Iraq
Plan Would Set Deadlines, Goals
By Karen DeYoung and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A01
President Bush personally weighed in yesterday on
diplomatic efforts to secure United Nations' authority
for war against Iraq, telephoning the presidents of
Chile, Mexico and Angola to push a compromise proposal
that U.S. and British officials believe could begin to
break the impasse at the U.N. Security Council.
Under the evolving plan, Iraq would be given a set of
benchmark disarmament tasks and a deadline for
achieving them, a proposal that incorporates
suggestions made by undecided council members. The
proposal would also automatically authorize the end of
U.N. weapons inspections and the use of force against
Iraq unless a council majority agrees that Baghdad has
fully complied with the benchmark demands.
Diplomats and senior administration officials
cautioned that many parts of the proposal, which would
amend a widely opposed resolution introduced last
week, were still under discussion. Chief among the
points of disagreement was a deadline date, originally
set for March 17. The six undecided members have
suggested April 17, while the United States has
insisted that it be no later than the end of next
week. Britain is seeking a middle ground. The White
House has said a vote on the measure must be held by
Friday.
Bush's personal intervention marked a sharp change
from days of saber-rattling against Iraq and
conversations largely limited to fellow leaders who
already agreed with him, suggesting that the White
House is closing in on the final phase of diplomacy.
He also telephoned the leaders of Australia, Italy and
Spain yesterday, all strong supporters of his stern
attitude toward the United Nations and aggressive
policy against Baghdad.
Despite U.S. and British optimism that they will be
ready to put a new version of the resolution on the
table today or early Thursday, and stand a good chance
of winning the nine of 15 council votes needed for
passage, early reaction from the six was not
encouraging. "I don't think this can be accepted,"
said one diplomat who said both the benchmarks and the
early deadline remained unacceptable. The six
uncommitted members are Angola, Mexico, Guinea,
Cameroon, Chile and Pakistan.
What they had seen and heard so far, the diplomat
said, "is not what we expected" in terms of
compromise. Saying that the six were "very
frustrated," the diplomat added, "I don't think there
will be any solution to this problem. . . . This may
possibly be the end of the road" in terms of possible
compromise.
An amended resolution is still almost certain to be
vetoed by France and perhaps Russia, who oppose any
deadline and have argued that only the U.N. inspectors
can set benchmarks or judge compliance. But U.S. and
British officials, with Spain and Bulgaria the only
other declared members on their side, have made clear
they will consider nine votes a "moral victory"
sufficient to launch a war they say is legally
justified by years of U.N. demands on Iraq.
"We prefer a vote of 15 to nothing," a senior official
said. "But we'd also be glad to have nine votes." In
fact, the official said, many in the administration
view a vetoed majority as a very good outcome, leaving
the United States on what it perceives as moral high
ground but with no obligation to obey the terms of the
mooted resolution.
"The resolution would not be a resolution," the
official said. "It would be a vetoed resolution," and
the administration would see no further need to wait
for additional reports from inspectors, or for any
deadline beyond a decision by Bush.
A French official yesterday described the new
proposals as a "completely artificial" attempt at
compromise that merely restates U.S. and British
insistence that weapons inspections be ended by a
definite early date, regardless of whether they are
making progress. Referring to a report to the council
by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix last Friday,
the official said, "The inspectors have already said
they need not years, not days, but months to complete
their assessments."
The official said it was doubtful the proposal would
draw in any of the six undecided votes particularly
with the short deadline Washington is demanding.
"They've resisted so much pressure . . . if they were
going to swallow this so easily, they would have done
it days ago," the official said, adding that French
Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has just
returned from a tour of the three African countries
"quite confident" they will stand firm in opposition.
Germany and Syria are seen as extremely unlikely to
change their opposition to any deadline, and China is
likely to vote no or abstain.
In a day of frenzied diplomacy, most of the
negotiating took place in bilateral and regional
conversations on the telephone and behind closed
doors. The council held an open meeting to listen to
the views of non-council members, most of whom opposed
the move toward war and argued that weapons
inspections be given more time.
The six undecided members have been stuck between the
extremes of the United States, which believes it has
enough information on Iraqi intransigence and needs no
further inspections or deadline, and France, which
feels the inspections are progressing, however slowly,
and should be open-ended. The six reached a common
understanding over the weekend to promote their own
proposal, giving Iraq an April 17 deadline to prove it
is ready to disarm. If it failed, the council would
meet again to decide what to do. It calls for
establishment of a list of specific disarmament tests
and biweekly council briefings by inspectors.
Canada, which is not a council member, floated its own
proposal yesterday, calling for benchmark tasks and a
deadline set three weeks after the resolution was
adopted. Unlike the proposal of the six, it
specifically authorizes U.N. member states to "use all
necessary means to disarm Iraq" if it does not comply.
Canada's U.N. ambassador, Paul Heinbecker, called the
proposal a "melding" of a number of plans.
The Canadian proposal also reflects wording in the
resolution co-sponsored by the United States, Britain
and Spain. Some of the undecided six had objected to
setting the benchmarks and a deadline, but allowing
for no further meeting to judge compliance and decide
whether war was justified. The new wording calls for a
council meeting, but only if members want to argue
that Baghdad has fully cooperated. Thus members are
spared having to overtly authorize war.
Even as Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
worked the telephones, there was still significant
disagreement between Washington and London. The
administration has not yet agreed to the five
benchmarks proposed by the British, which require
specific Iraqi progress in: arranging unmonitored
interviews of weapons scientists and technicians and
providing substantive information on alleged stores of
VX nerve gas, outstanding stores of anthrax,
prohibited ballistic missiles and remotely piloted
aircraft.
And while Britain is willing to move the deadline far
closer to the April 17 proposal, Washington has
sharply refused. "That's not going anywhere," a senior
administration said. "Our bottom line is getting
shorter and shorter," and is extremely unlikely to
budge beyond the end of next week, the official said.
Britain has committed as many as 40,000 troops to the
invasion, and despite overwhelming domestic opposition
and a deep desire for Security Council approval, Blair
has not wavered. But tension between Washington and
London neared a breaking point yesterday, when Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, noting battles over Iraq
in the British Parliament and within Blair's
government, told reporters that Britain's role in both
a military attack and in postwar Iraq was still
"unclear."
After sharp British protests yesterday afternoon,
Rumsfeld issued a clarification, saying: "I was simply
pointing out that obtaining a second United Nations
Security Council resolution is important to the United
Kingdom and that we are working to achieve it. In the
event that a decision to use force is made, we have
every reason to believe there will be a significant
military contribution from the United Kingdom."
British officials also expressed fresh concern that
failure to obtain a resolution authorizing war against
Iraq would expose them to potential prosecution by a
newly established International Criminal Court with
jurisdiction over war crimes. Britain is a signatory
to the treaty establishing the tribunal, but the
United States is not. Blair was advised by his
attorney general last October that military action to
force "regime change" in Baghdad would violate
international law.
In a separate move that defense officials suggested
was a message to Iraq, the United States yesterday
successfully tested the most powerful nonnuclear bomb
in its arsenal. The 21,000-pound MOAB, or Massive
Ordnance Air Blast, sent a mushroom cloud into the sky
over the test range at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
"There is a psychological component to all aspects of
warfare," Rumsfeld said in reference to the bomb.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
=====
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq:
Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your
country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be
the day of your liberation." -George W. Bush 1/29/03
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
