|
In the Press This Week:
The 11th
Hour
(March 1 2003 – March 8 2003)
|
By V&A Editorial Staff
|
09/03/2003
|
From
The New York Times
“The
French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, scornfully rejected
the new resolution. ‘By imposing a deadline of only a few days,
would we merely be seeking a pretext for war?’ he asked. ‘As a
permanent member of the Security Council, I will say it again:
France will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes the
automatic use of force.’ The Russian and Chinese foreign ministers
followed suit.”
U.N.
Split Widens as Allies Dismiss Deadline on Iraq
From
The Independent
“The
amended draft resolution concludes that Iraq will have ‘failed’
to take the final opportunity to disarm, unless ‘on or before 17
March 2003, the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated
“full, unconditional, immediate and active co-operation with its
disarmament obligations”.’ The implication of failure is that
swift military punishment will follow.
“President
George Bush pre-empted the Blix report by warning in a White House
news conference on Thursday night that he intended pushing on to war
even if the resolution was defeated…
“If
the UN rejects the resolution next week, military action could begin
even earlier, possibly within 48 hours, giving time for
evacuations.”
On
the brink of war: UK gives Saddam 10-day deadline to avoid conflict
From
The Guardian
“The
chief weapons inspector rendered a relatively upbeat assessment,
offering only mild criticisms of Iraq. He repeatedly suggested that
there were constructive ways forward to resolve outstanding
disarmament issues, in particular by focusing on ‘clusters’ of
remaining tasks…
“Mr
Blix concluded that inspections should continue for a few more
months. His considered message was that there was every reason to
hope they will ultimately succeed.
“For
the Bush administration, however, it is clear that what Mr Blix has
to say carries less and less weight. His reasoned, fact-based
approach was not reciprocated in Colin Powell's response. The US
secretary of state was at pains to pick holes, emphasising the
negative, decrying Iraq's ‘grudging’ behaviour and repeating
earlier claims of Iraqi cheating. Ignoring evidence of present-day
compliance, he again resorted to the history of past Iraqi
non-cooperation. Mr Powell is entitled to feel dissatisfied about
Iraqi foot-dragging and time-wasting. It is certainly true that Iraq
can and should do more, faster. But Mr Powell, if he were as
objective as Mr Blix and not politically committed to war, would
surely also admit that this report, like its predecessors, provides
no basis or justification for a resort to military force at this
time.”
The
disarming Mr Blix
From
The Washington Post
“During
the public and sometimes emotional clash of Security Council members
today, a number of smaller, undecided nations that the
administration had wooed made it clear they were uncomfortable with
the U.S. approach and pleaded for the council to unite around a
broad plan that would set a series of deadlines. On the 15-member
council, only Bulgaria signaled support for a new resolution, while
eight nations, including Pakistan, Angola and Chile, appeared to be
against it.
“President
Bush insisted Thursday that the United States would call for a vote,
and U.S. officials yesterday pressed for it as early as Tuesday.
Nine votes -- and no vetoes -- are necessary for passage. It is
highly unusual for members to seek a vote for a Security Council
resolution that appears doomed to fail, and it was clear the looming
showdown concerned many of the foreign ministers attending today's
session. Several suggested the rift could irrevocably damage the
international body.”
Blix's
Iraq Report Deepens U.N. Rift
|
