[R-G] US diplomats: War is decided, 'no' vote in UNSC will be unfrien...

[DavidMcR at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/25/03 6:23:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
ffeldman at bellatlantic.net writes:

<< 
 U.S. Officials Say U.N. Future At Stake in Vote
 Bush Message Is That a War Is Inevitable, Diplomats Say (abridged)
 By Karen DeYoung  Washington Post Staff Writer
 Tuesday, February 25, 2003; Page A01
 
 As it launches an all-out lobbying campaign to gain United Nations approval,
 the Bush administration has begun to characterize the decision facing the
 Security Council not as whether there will be war against Iraq, but whether
 council members are willing to irrevocably destroy the world body's
 legitimacy by failing to follow the U.S. lead, senior U.S. and diplomatic
 sources said.
 
 In meetings yesterday with senior officials in Moscow, Undersecretary of
 State John R. Bolton told the Russian government that "we're going ahead,"
 whether the council agrees or not, a senior administration official said.
 "The council's unity is at stake here."
 
 A senior diplomat from another council member said his government had heard
 a similar message and was told not to anguish over whether to vote for war.
 "You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the
 diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have
 already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the
 council will go along with it or not."
 
 What they must determine, U.S. officials are telling these governments, is
 if their insistence that U.N. weapons inspections be given more time is
 worth the destruction of council credibility at a time of serious world
 upheaval.
 "We're going to try to convince people that their responsibilities as
 members of the Security Council necessitate a vote that will strengthen the
 role of the council in international politics," national security adviser
 Condoleezza Rice said yesterday.
 
 Rice mentioned North Korea and Iran as issues where "the international
 community has a lot of hard work to do. . . . And so we're going to try to
 convince people that the Security Council needs to be strong."
 raq, Rice told reporters in a White House briefing, "is an important issue,
 a critically important issue for the United States. . . . So nobody should
 underestimate . . . the importance of America's resolve in getting this
 done."
 
 The administration holds out scant hope of repeating last fall's unanimous
 council tally, when all 15 members agreed to demand Iraq submit to a tough
 new weapons inspections regimen. Three of the five permanent members with
 veto power -- France, Russia and China -- have called for a war decision to
 be postponed while inspections continue. Of the 10 non-permanent members,
 only Spain and Bulgaria currently support the U.S. position; Syria and
 Germany are considered definite no's, and Pakistan either a no or an
 abstention.
 
 All five of the others -- three in Africa and two in Latin America -- are
 crucial to obtaining the nine votes necessary for non-vetoed passage. Last
 weekend, Bush telephoned Mexican President Vicente Fox and Chilean President
 Ricardo Lagos to ask for their votes but received no firm commitment,
 officials said.   Bush telephoned Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos
 earlier this month, and Assistant Secretary of State Walter H. Kansteiner
 III last weekend began a tour of the capitals of Angola, Guinea and
 Cameroon.
 
 For some, particularly among the key five non-permanent members, there are
 additional pressure points beyond an appeal to council unity. "They want
 support for the resolution," said a diplomat from one of the five. "They are
 not offering anything," or threatening reprisals, he said. "They are
 anticipating trouble if there is not support . . . [and] quietly sending the
 message that the United States would consider it an unfriendly act."
 But another council diplomat said: "There is no mention of any sort of
 threat or pressure. None whatsoever." Instead, he said, "The conversation is
 very simple. There is a description of why they've presented a resolution,
 an objection to the piecemeal approach" of ongoing inspections, and
 insistence that "the council has to demonstrate that it is capable of taking
 decisions."
 
 Even France, which has led the current council majority asking for more
 inspections, has repeatedly spoken of unity as the primary council goal. As
 it sets out to reverse a potential 11 to 4 vote against the new resolution,
 the administration is hoping that Paris will ultimately decline to be the
 spoiler and will opt for abstention. "The argument the Americans are giving
 us," this diplomat said, "is 'if you support us, that will put pressure on
 France and they'll dare not apply a veto.' " And if France can be persuaded
 to abstain, several administration officials said they believe Russia and
 China will do the same.
 
 Although the administration appears willing to declare victory with a 9 to 2
 vote, with four abstentions, other council members said it would be a false
 victory. "Abstention will mean opposition, it will not mean support," a
 non-permanent council diplomat said. "If the decision to go to war with Iraq
 is adopted, it has to be adopted . . . with an important majority, including
 at least Russia and China, even if France doesn't want to go along."
 
 "This idea of putting three members with veto power on the outside is not
 something that sounds much like unity," the diplomat said. "Are they going
 to declare the Security Council 'relevant' by virtue of submission by the
 smallest states?"
 If a nine-vote, no-veto majority cannot be assured, the senior U.S. official
 said, the administration will make a "tactical decision" as to whether it is
 better to proceed to war with no vote at all.
 Staff writer Mike Allen contributed to this report.
 © 2003 The Washington Post Company
 
 
  >>