Key nations at UN weigh Canada plan
'I do not think I heard anyone say a negative thing about it,' envoy says after meeting
Steven Edwards and Michael Higgins
National Post, with files from Sheldon Alberts and news services
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
UNITED NATIONS - In a move that could undermine Washington's war plan, Canada last night pushed its compromise proposal for Iraq at a meeting of the UN Security Council's non-permanent members, whose backing the United States is desperately seeking.
Acceptance of the Canadian compromise would be a setback for the United States, which yesterday was struggling to deal with a Turkish rejection that could see it fighting a war in April as desert temperatures soar.
Yesterday's meeting, hosted by Mexico, illustrated a growing confidence of countries to consider defying the United States, which has been joined by Britain and Spain in tabling a resolution that would open the way to disarming Iraq by force.
Paul Heinbecker, the Canadian Ambassador to the UN, addressed the 10 non-permanent members, six of which are considered swing voters after saying they resent having to decide between war or peace for Iraq.
He gave a point-by-point account of the Canadian plan, which would delay any Security Council decision about war until March 31.
"I do not think I heard anyone say a negative thing about it," Mr. Heinbecker said after presenting the plan. "There is a desire [to take it forward]. Whether it can be operationalized or not I do not know."
The plan aims to bridge differences in the Security Council over how to deal with Iraq. "We have done our job so far in proposing some ideas," Mr. Heinbecker said.
The United States and Britain want a vote on their proposed resolution soon after the next report of Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector, who will appear before the Council on Friday.
France and Germany, together with Russia and with the support of China, have proposed extending weapons inspections at least until the summer.
In the closed meeting, Mr. Heinbecker answered questions for more than an hour.
Mr. Heinbecker told reporters the plan was flexible. "We've never said we had a patent on this," he said. "We said, 'If there's going to be a compromise, it's going to look something like this.' "
Any aspect, including the deadline could be changed. "We never said it was a definitive date," Mr. Heinbecker said.
Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, remains optimistic the non-permanent members will try to use some elements of the Canadian plan to reach a compromise, Jim Munson, his communications director, said.
"We have put these ideas out with the hope that the 10 non-permanent members will take a serious look at how we can find a compromise for peace. We think the Canadian compromise is still in play," said Mr. Munson.
Outside of the Security Council, Mr. Chrétien yesterday spoke to the leaders of Norway and Sweden and received strong support for the Canadian proposal.
Diplomats emerging from meetings about the Security Council agenda for March said the 13th had been left open, raising speculation that the vote on the U.S.-backed war resolution could come then.
"Our view is that we don't need to debate this very simple and straightforward resolution," John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the UN, said yesterday.
But if the resolution is to succeed, at least five of the six swing voters who met with Mr. Heinbecker yesterday must support it.
The six countries are Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, Cameroon, Guinea and Angola.
Pakistan was expected to ultimately vote with the United States, but before last night's meeting,
Munir Akram, the country's ambassador to the UN, said the Council's non-permanent members were looking for a compromise between the U.S.-led and French-led positions.
"We are going to search for something that bridges the positions," said Mr. Akram. "We have to try and find some common ground. That's important for the Council ... and it's important for the future."
Mr. Akram left the meeting after an hour and said they were not at a stage where they could present the Canadian plan as a resolution that would compete with the U.S.-backed war resolution.
However, he did not rule out the possibility it will reach the Council as a discussion document. "We have not got an agreed approach yet. We have to explore that."
Cristian Maquieira, Chile's deputy ambassador to the UN, emerged from the meeting to say delegates said the way forward was to reach consensus on a middle road.
"It's like knitting. You start exploring," he said, adding there was a broad agreement to look at the plan "in a modified form."
David Malone, a former Canadian ambassador to the UN, said it was clear the non-permanent members were hoping for some flexibility in the opposing positions.
The Canadian plan was the only compromise offered and for that reason "it may be attractive to the elected members," said Mr. Malone, now president of the International Peace Academy, which monitors the Security Council.
One UN diplomat said the United States was feverishly lobbying for support, "accentuating the positive, what they can do for people."
Much of the lobbying was taking place directly between capitals. Noting the French claim that the United States would not win a vote today, the diplomat pointed out: "It doesn't need the votes today."
He said non-permanent members were waiting to see who "would jump first" in the voting which could sway other members.
Momentum in support for the Canadian plan came last Thursday when Mexico and Chile became the first of the swing voters to pronounce their support for it.
Washington's strategy is to get the minimum nine votes needed to adopt a resolution authorizing war and then dare France, Russia, or China to veto the measure.
© Copyright 2003 National Post |
