| ||
| ||
| ||
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UK steps back from Iraq deadline
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United States and Britain have indicated they could rethink a proposed Monday deadline for Iraq to disarm but warned against stretching the issue beyond the month's end. The development on Tuesday came as pressure mounted on British Prime Minister Tony Blair at home and abroad, with resignation threats from ministers and France and Russia insisting they would use their veto power to block a second U.N. Security Council resolution. "We have gone for the date of 17 March to indicate to the Security Council that time is short," Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock told CNN. Greenstock said Britain was prepared to consider establishing some tests Iraq would be required to meet in order to avoid war -- an idea similar to one Canada offered last month -- but added: "I'm pretty sure we're talking about action in March. Don't look beyond March." In Washington, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the Bush administration might give diplomacy "a little" more time but called suggestions of a 30- or 45-day ultimatum "a non-starter." The proposal now before the Security Council would give Iraq until Monday to meet U.N. demands to give up its chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and efforts to develop nuclear weapons -- or face war against the United States and its allies. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Tuesday raised, then dropped, a suggestion that Britain might be unable to join a U.S.-led coalition against Iraq if the United Nations fails to back military action. Rumsfeld issued a statement later saying he did not doubt Britain's commitment to seeing Iraq disarmed. "In my press briefing today, I was simply pointing out that obtaining a second United Nations Security Council resolution is important to the United Kingdom and that we are working to achieve it," he said. "In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom." Fleischer repeated the Bush administration's call for a Security Council vote by the end of the week and warned Iraq against doubting U.S. resolve. "I would strongly encourage Iraq not to come to any conclusions about American credibility, and America's intent to disarm [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein along with a coalition of the willing, as a result of any of the ongoing diplomacy," Fleischer said. "That would be a grave mistake for Iraq to make." Iraq says it already has complied with U.N. disarmament resolutions. Britain introduced the proposed resolution last week with U.S. and Spanish support. But they agreed Monday to delay a vote after France and Russia threatened to veto the proposal.
"We see no reason interrupt inspections, and any resolution containing ultimatums and contains automaticity in the use of force is not acceptable to us," Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov told reporters Tuesday. Passage requires nine of the council's 15 votes, with no vetoes from the five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. So far, only four Security Council members -- the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria -- have said they would support the new resolution. Five others -- France, Russia, China, Germany and Syria -- have indicated they oppose it. The remaining six council members -- Chile, Mexico, Guinea, Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan -- have been the subject of intense lobbying by the five major powers. But those efforts appeared to have had limited results. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday any U.S.-led strike on Iraq without approval of the Security Council would "not be in conformity" with the U.N. charter. He also said the "legitimacy" of any action against Iraq would be "seriously impaired" if the council could not come to an agreement beforehand. (Full story) The Security Council was scheduled to meet Tuesday afternoon to allow member states without a seat on the council to comment on the measure. Undecided members have discussed postponing a deadline for a month or longer, and Guinean Ambassador Mamady Traore predicted: "We are going to see something new." In a televised address Tuesday, Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali did not say how his government would vote but said it is "far too difficult" for Pakistan to back an attack against Iraq. (Full story) President Bush called Angolan President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos to seek his support Tuesday and planned to call other leaders later in the day. Top administration officials met Tuesday morning at the White House to discuss the situation. In London, British Minister Tony Blair said a veto threat "tells Saddam, 'You're off the hook.' " Blair is facing extensive opposition at home to the prospect of war without U.N. support. Recent polls indicate fewer than 20 percent of Britons would back a war unless military action had Security Council support. "I believe passionately that if we end up with Europe and America dividing apart, that would be very dangerous for both of us and the rest of the world, so I think we have to work very, very hard in the next few days to come to a common position," Blair said Monday night. CNN White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux and U.N. Producer Ronni Berke contributed to this report.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
