U.S. Seeks U.N. Vote on Iraq on Friday
By BARRY SCHWEID
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 12, 2003; 8:48 PM
With intense personal lobbying by President Bush, the United States appeared headed for a week's end showdown at the United Nations on a proposed resolution backing the use of force to disarm Iraq.
Needing the support of at least nine of the 15 members of the Security Council, the administration was trying Wednesday to persuade fence-sitters to come over to the U.S. side. Three African countries, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, as well as Mexico and Chile, could determine the fate of the resolution.
A senior U.S. official told The Associated Press late in the day there were strong indications the three African countries would vote with the United States. However, Foreign Minister Francois Fall of Guinea, a special target of the U.S. diplomatic drive, has at times given conflicting signals on how his country would vote.
The United States has the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria and, in addition to the three African nations, needs at least two votes among Mexico, Chile and Pakistan.
The administration probably would seek a vote by the council on Friday, according to U.S. officials.
However, one senior administration official said the White House was not ruling out pulling the resolution or putting the vote off beyond Friday.
Under separate consideration was a declaration proposed by Britain that seeks to establish "benchmarks" for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to show he was prepared to disclose and destroy his weapons of mass destruction.
Despite close ties with Britain, which joined the United States and Spain in sponsoring the resolution, the administration did not directly endorse the British declaration.
The State Department, meanwhile, publicly criticized French President Jacques Chirac as sending "precisely the wrong signal to Baghdad" by threatening to veto the resolution.
Spokesman Richard Boucher said Chirac's stand was making it less likely that Iraq could be disarmed. The White House suggested for the first time that voting against the resolution in the U.N. Security Council could damage a country's relationship with the United States.
Chirac has threatened to veto the resolution should it receive the nine Security Council votes necessary for approval.
The resolution expected to come before the Security Council would extend the deadline beyond the previously envisioned date of March 17, diplomats said. Britain plans to lay out the Iraqi conditions in specific detail, including demanding that Saddam Hussein make a televised broadcast stating that Iraq will not produce or retain weapons of mass destruction, according to a draft of the conditions, obtained by The Associated Press.
The draft could be revised to try to attract support or, Boucher said, a separate statement could be approved.
"We've indicated a certain flexibility in that regard as well as on the deadline issue," the spokesman said.
As Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell telephoned world leaders for their support, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that if the resolution fails "there's no question that the president would be disappointed."
Declining to specify potential repercussions, Fleischer said pointedly: "The representatives of Congress think about these things. In all cases the president knows that we will continue to focus on issues where we have united values or the other issues on which we will work closely. But I can't predict every eventuality."
The U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Alexander Vershbow, said a Russian veto of the resolution would damage Moscow's economic and political interests.
Amid the growing tensions, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bush talked by telephone Wednesday. Bush also talked to Presidents Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of the Philippines and Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and Lithuanian President Rolandas Paksas.
Both the White House and the State Department dropped hints that the administration was closing in on the minimum of nine votes required for approval of the resolution.
"I wouldn't deny we are making progress, but I wouldn't lead you to believe we've got it in the bag," Boucher told reporters at the State Department.
"The president is going the last mile for diplomacy," Fleischer said. "We shall see if the other nations on the Security Council are willing to entertain that last mile."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meanwhile, sought to smooth over any rough spots he may have caused with Britain by suggesting on Tuesday that British troops in the Persian Gulf region might not fight in a war with Iraq.
Rumsfeld said Wednesday the administration "has every reason to believe Britain would make a serious contribution to any war.
On Capitol Hill, 12 Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to Powell saying an attack on Iraq would not meet the standards Powell himself set in 1992 to determine whether the United States needed to resort to war. Among the points mentioned were whether nonviolent means had been exhausted and whether international support existed.
The 12 lawmakers, including Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, requested a meeting with Powell.
washingtonpost.com |
