US castigates France over Iraq
Washington has launched an unusually barbed attack on France, accusing Paris of jeopardising peace through its threats to veto a fresh United Nations resolution sanctioning military action against Iraq.
A spokesman for the US State Department, Richard Boucher, said President Jacques Chirac's veto threats sent the "wrong signal to Baghdad, precisely the wrong signal for those who want peaceful disarmament".
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who was re-elected on an anti-war platform last September and who has made clear he will not back a new resolution, was also criticised.
The rebukes came as speculation mounted that the US and its closest allies would not bother putting a new resolution against Iraq to the UN Security Council, given that a French veto would automatically mean its failure.
Saying that he'll veto no matter what sends precisely the wrong signal to Baghdad, precisely the wrong signal to those who want peaceful disarmament
US State Department spokesman
Trying and failing to secure a resolution before launching a war may be even more perilous than never trying at all, he says.
It may also be illegal under international law to start military action having been explicitly refused support.
The Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, has warned that the failure of the UN Security Council to forge a united position over Iraq is giving the wrong messages to both Iraq and the proponents of war in the US.
Prince Saud said the splits in the council were tragic and more likely to lead to war than prevent it - the hardliners in Baghdad would interpret them as meaning they did not have to make concessions, while the hardliners in Washington would say they showed the UN was ineffectual and should be sidelined.
Prince Saud warned that there was a real danger a conflict would result in the disintegration of Iraq and said his government had made preparations to deal with up to 100,000 refugees.
Floating voters
Even without a veto, major doubts have surfaced as to whether the US and UK can garner the nine votes needed in the council to pass the resolution.
US officials say they believe they now have the agreement in principle of the three African countries on the Security Council to vote for the new resolution, but that still leaves them two votes short.
In Chile - one of the apparently undecided countries - President Ricardo Lagos hinted that his nation was leaning towards voting against, while Pakistan says it has yet to make a final decision.
Spain, which is co-sponsoring a draft resolution along with the US and UK, indicated on Wednesday there was little point in putting a motion forward that was already destined to fail.
"Not submitting the resolution is a possibility given the French determination to use its veto, because such a veto would have consequences on the UN system," the Spanish Foreign Minister, Ana Palacio, said after a brief trip to Paris.
Pressed on the issue, her British counterpart, Jack Straw, failed to quash the mounting speculation that the allies were indeed contemplating a withdrawal of the resolution.
'Desirable'
The US has consistently made clear that, while it would welcome a second resolution against Iraq, it would lead a "coalition of the willing" into war without explicit UN backing if necessary.
But British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington's closest ally on the issue, has remained keen to secure a second resolution - particularly given the mounting British opposition to war.
On Wednesday, Mr Blair insisted that the "legal base" for war had already been established in Resolution 1441 passed unanimously in November last year.
That resolution ordered Iraq to declare any weapons of mass destruction and accept the return of weapons inspectors, or face "serious consequences".
The US and Britain insist the resolution has already been breached, accusing Baghdad of failing to account for all its arms.
New conditions
Despite the speculation that a resolution may never be tabled, Britain has nonetheless been proposing amendments to its draft motion, which it hopes will make it more palatable to Security Council members.
UK BENCHMARKS FOR IRAQ
Saddam must publicly acknowledge his arsenal
30 scientists must be allowed to be interviewed abroad
Stocks of anthrax and other material must be identified
Al-Samoud II missiles and their engines must be destroyed
Drones must be accounted for
Mobile bio-warfare laboratories must be surrendered
These involve attaching six conditions that Iraq must fulfil before a deadline to avoid war.
The six new tests of disarmament include demands for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to make a public statement admitting he has weapons of mass destruction and for Baghdad to allow scientists to be questioned abroad before a set deadline.
Washington has however refused to state explicitly whether it backs these six tests, and made clear again on Wednesday that it was growing increasingly frustrated with the diplomatic process.
"The president has given diplomacy a certain amount of time. He will not give it forever," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
On Tuesday, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld controversially suggested the US could go to war without Britain.
Until we know what the resolution is, we won't know the answer to what their [the UK's] role will be
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary
London sought to play down the remarks, and Mr Blair insisted that it was in the British national interest to take action against Iraq.
Nonetheless, the remarks have been interpreted as a clear sign that the US is not prepared to wait around for the British to secure a resolution.
In other developments:
In Turkey, police clash with protesters opposed to the possible use of Turkish bases by American troops
The UN orders its international staff out of the Kurdish-held area of northern Iraq - evacuation is expected to take place on Thursday
Former US President Bill Clinton tells a convention that he believes war can be avoided if the US backs a British resolution
The EU warns it might be unwilling to fund reconstruction of Iraq if war is waged without UN backing
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov says a war in Iraq will complicate matters in other regions of the world
Baghdad says a drone - which the US claims could be used to deliver chemical and biological agents - is only a prototype and flew only three kilometres (1.9 miles) on its test flight.
VOTE Who do you agree with on Iraq? US and UK France and Russia Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion
Story from BBC NEWS:
news.bbc.co.uk
Published: 2003/03/13 01:44:15 |
