[A-List] US imperialism vs. the axis of peace

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

A trigger for war? New axis of peace throws UN into chaos

Ewen MacAskill, Gary Younge in New York, Ian Black in Brussels, and John
Hooper in Berlin
Tuesday February 25, 2003
The Guardian

The United Nations was in the throes of the biggest diplomatic confrontation
for decades last night after the US and Britain tabled a new resolution
paving the way for an assault on Iraq next month.

The resolution declares that Iraq has failed to grasp "the final
opportunity" to avoid war.

But France and Germany, the leading opponents of war, immediately produced a
powerful riposte by revealing that they had secured the support of Russia
and China for an alternative, peaceful plan that would allow Iraq more time.

This formidable opposition alliance throws into doubt whether the resolution
will be adopted, and threatens to wreck the US-British timetable for
invasion.

The Franco-German proposal sets Iraq deadlines for disarmament "programme by
programme".

Speaking after dining with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder in Berlin, the French
president, Jacques Chirac, said that the majority of the members of the UN
security council were in favour of their proposal.

In a response to the US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's dismissal of
France and Germany as "old Europe", Mr Schröder said the proposals
represented the views of "good old Europe".

He said: "An awareness of what war means and what it represents is deeply
scored into the collective consciousness of the peoples of Europe. That
perhaps allows us to understand better why Germany and France hope for and
want a peaceful disarmament of Iraq."

President George Bush said the US and British resolution would test the
relevance of the UN, but made it clear that if the UN did not support it the
US would go ahead anyway.

"Is it going to be a body that means what it says?" he said. "We certainly
hope it does. But one way or the other, Saddam Hussein, for the sake of
peace and the security of the American people, will be disarmed."

As he was speaking, the tide of US public opinion was flowing against him. A
poll commissioned by the Washington Post and ABC found that a majority of
Americans believed that the US should work to gain the support of the
security council, even if it meant delaying a war with Iraq. Only 39% said
the administration should "move quickly" without security council backing.

The stand-off may mean that the US and Britain will go to war without a UN
mandate, imposing an enormous political price on Tony Blair.

The resolution is co-sponsored by the US, Britain and Spain, and backed by
Bulgaria. The other 11 members of the security council are, at present,
opposed.

In an attempt to win over the waverers, the US and Britain have abandoned
hope of a resolution explicitly authorising war and opted for a watered-down
version that reiterates much of the last UN resolution on Iraq, 1441.

It accuses Iraq of submitting a weapons statement in December that was
false, contained omissions and "failed to take the final opportunity
afforded in resolution 1441".

The plan is to put the resolution to a vote soon after the UN chief weapons
inspector, Hans Blix, reports on March 7 on any Iraqi progress towards
disarmament. War could begin soon afterwards.

The White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Mr Bush had made it clear that
he expected the draft to be considered "in short order". The foreign
secretary, Jack Straw, said he expected a vote in a "fortnight or so".

The junior Foreign Office minister, Mike O'Brien, said Britain would examine
the French memorandum, but he was sceptical about its contents.

The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said a second resolution
was premature while the arms inspections were making progress.

"There are some countries that think that today it's important to table a
second resolution," he said.

"We think for our part it isn't necessary or useful, since we are resolutely
in a time of inspections. That is why we have said we could not accept this
second resolution."

The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, who is due in London today for
further discussion, also said the resolution was unnecessary and did not
correspond to the consensus reached by EU leaders last week.

Arab officials urged the EU meeting to avoid a war, which they said could
deepen frus tration and militancy in the Middle East.

The Arab League's secretary general, Amr Moussa, told reporters: "You can
never belittle the consequences of any war, especially in an area like the
Middle East, already frustrated with the Israeli occupation and the bias
towards Israel. So adding insult to injury is too much for us."