Posted on 03/12/2003 7:00:27 PM PST by HAL9000
The Bush administration believes that it is one vote shy of having nine of 15 votes needed on a UN Security Council resolution giving Iraq an ultimatum to disarm, CNN quoted two senior U.S. State Department officials as saying Wednesday.These officials said the administration will focus its diplomatic energies on Mexico and Chile to secure their backing, and that the U.S. is confident it has the support of the three African members of the Security Council - Cameroon, Guinea and Angola - despite a visit this week by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to lobby for support opposing the resolution.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, "I wouldn't deny that we are making progress but I don't want to mislead you into thinking that we've got it in the bag."
"We stay fixated on the rule that you don't count your chickens until the cows come home," he told a briefing. Boucher was referring to Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, as well as the other undecided members -- Chile, Mexico and Pakistan.
The station also reported Wednesday that negotiations have secretly begun with key Iraqi military officials in the hope that some military units will not fight in a possible war. It quoted one senior official as saying that some parts of the Iraqi military already may have agreed not to fight.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Wednesday that the United States expects a vote this week on the resolution. "The president has given diplomacy a certain amount of time. He will not give it forever." Fleischer did not rule out the possibility of U.S. President George W. Bush issuing a deadline for military action after the diplomatic work comes to an end.
Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said earlier on Wednesday that the resolution's sponsors -- Spain, the United States and Britain -- may not risk a French veto in the UN Security Council. But the Foreign Ministry later clarified her remarks.
"She (Palacio) was only referring to a hypothetical situation in the sense that there is a very distant possibility that a second resolution might not be presented," a Foreign Ministry spokesman told Reuters.
"Spain is working for a second resolution and trying to build consensus and a majority (on the Council)," he said.
As currently drafted the second resolution, sponsored by Britain, Spain and the United States, would give Iraq a deadline of March 17 to prove it is disarming or else face attack. Palacio said the resolution could be withdrawn "even if it received sufficient support" to be adopted.
Britain said Wednesday Saddam Hussein must declare on television that he will give up hidden weapons of mass destruction as one of six conditions to avoid war.
Earlier Wednesday, Britain said the U.S. knew it could count on London for significant military support in a Gulf war, after Washington's signal that it might attack Iraq on its own.
British Foreign Office minister Mike O'Brien said the six conditions, which Britain wants to attach to a draft second resolution on Iraq, were being discussed with fellow United Nations Security Council members as negotiations reached an end game.
O'Brien told reporters Saddam must declare on television that he has hidden, and will now give up, weapons of mass destruction. He must allow 30 scientists and their families to fly to Cyprus for discussions with UN weapons inspectors.
The Iraqi government must also give up its anthrax and other biological and chemical agents and account for unmanned drone aircraft which could spray chemical agents over a wide area.
Officials said the remaining provisos were a commitment to destroy all banned missiles and surrender all "mobile bio-production laboratories" for destruction.
Saddam could also at a later date be required to pass laws banning Iraqi state companies from making banned weapons.
"These are realistic, achievable conditions that Saddam Hussein can comply with tomorrow," O'Brien said.
But the humiliating demand for a televised "mea culpa" alone is likely to be too much for Saddam to stomach, prompting anti-war members of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party to ask if his wish-list was little short of a declaration of war.
Last month 122 Labour parliamentarians - more than one in four - voted against Blair over Iraq and opposition, matching public disquiet, is growing into a full-blown crisis for Blair.
In parliament, he tried to woo dissenting supporters.
"What we are looking at is whether we can set out a very clear set of tests for Iraq to meet in order to demonstrate that it is in full compliance," Blair said. "We have a chance even now of avoiding conflict. But what we must show is the determination to act if Saddam does not fully comply."
Seeking key votes on a divided Security Council, Britain and the United States have suggested Iraq could get a few more days to prove it will disarm, slightly delaying a deadline for war.
Diplomats say Britain may extend the March 17 deadline, perhaps to March 21 or March 24. Blair's spokesman said that could happen but added: "It has to be a tight deadline."
The United States and Britain can count on only four of the nine Security Council votes they need for a new resolution authorizing war - their own and those of Spain and Bulgaria.
Five nations, three with veto power, are definitely against the resolution - Russia, France, China, Germany and Syria.
The six undecided members - Mexico, Chile, Cameroon, Angola, Guinea and Pakistan - suggested a 45-day deadline for Baghdad to demonstrate that it was in compliance, although Washington and London have rejected this as too long.
Blair told parliament he was continuing to work "flat out" for a second resolution and wanted to press for a vote. He repeated an appeal to Russia and France not to veto it.
"I hope even now those countries that are saying they would use their veto no matter what the circumstances will reconsider and realize that by doing so they risk not just the disarmament of Saddam but the unity of the United Nations," he said.
Britain plays down U.S. mention of going it alone in Iraq Responding to Tuesday's comments by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on a possible unilateral U.S. attack, British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said Rumsfeld had only been speaking hypothetically.
"What he was clearly talking about was a theoretical possibility that British forces might not be involved," Hoon told BBC Radio.
"But as he said very clearly in his statement, he has every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom."
Rumsfeld said Tuesday that if for domestic reasons Britain could not participate, "there are work-arounds and they [the British] would not be involved, at least in that phase."
A U.S. defense official said the remarks had provoked "a firestorm" of reaction from British officials.
Rumsfeld later issued a statement expressing confidence that the forces of America's most prominent ally would be side-by-side with U.S. troops should an attack take place.
What's that? Someone suggested the Brits be left out of a good fight? As if that would happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.