Tuesday, October 22, 2002
After a meeting with NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, President Bush pledged to give Iraq “one more chance,” and pursue disarmament through the UN. The administration was quick to make clear that if the UN would not produce a tough and persuasive resolution, the US would lead its own coalition to disarm Iraq.There is a great deal of confusion as to what the Administration’s position really is. A month ago, “regime change” was the order of the day. Since engaging the UN, that rhetoric has softened and the administration has appeared to begin defining “regime change” as disarmament. The reasoning is that if the Iraqi leadership allows for full disarmament, that would represent a profound change in the regime. Good coverage of this in another NY Times piece.
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
The United States has formally submitted the compromise resolution to the UN Security Council. The US is working to ensure the resolution represents and unambiguous demand to Iraq, and the other Security Council members are working to ensure that the US does not go to war on its own.
The Christian Science Monitor reports the premise of the horse-trading that will produce the final resolution. The US will continue to work with the UN on Iraq. In return, Russia and France understand that if Iraq obstructs weapons inspections, and they impede UN action, the US “won’t wait around for you to decide.”
In return for dropping some more egregious violations of Iraqi sovereignty, like US-appointed inspectors and flying Iraqi nationals and their families out of the country for interviews. In return, the US will get a mention of Iraq’s “material breach” of previous UN resolutions. As we discussed earlier, that phrase was used to justify the NATO attacks in Kosovo.
The Washington Post makes the excellent point that conducting interviews outside of Iraq is not only an invitation to defections, but would make it difficult for inspectors to distinguish between those with geniuinely valuable information and those who just wanted to leave the country.
Continue reading... (337 words, estimated 1:21 mins reading time)
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
At noon this Sunday, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein declared a general amnesty, releasing nearly every prisoner in the country. “It is the act of a father forgiving his children,” one prison official said. Very few details are available, even days later. It was widely reported that the amnesty was not discharged in an orderly fashion. Crowds rushed into the prisons, and at the Abu Ghraib prison, many inmates were crushed or suffocated in the chaos.Australia’s The Age covered the incredulous response from Iraqi citizens. Sky makes the important point that many missing Kuwaitis from the 1991 invasion could be amongst those freed. The most complete coverage is from the New York Times.
Thursday, October 17, 2002
The United States has found a compromise with the French for UN Security Council Resolutions. The US wanted a single resolution that carries the threat of force should Iraq interfere with weapons inspections. France, leading Russia and China, wanted two resolutions: one that demands weapons inspections, and a second resolution that would carry the threat of force, but only if the first resolution had been violated. The US is expected to present a draft of the compromise resolution very soon. It will probably be ratified by the end of October.
Reuters reports that the US decided that the single resolution wasn’t necessary, since a) it wasn’t going to convince France to ratify it in the first place and b) if the second resolution authorizing force doesn’t pass, it would have the support from enough coalition partners to proceed anyway. They described the compromise a the US making concessions, and France responding favorably.
AP
described the US action as “backing down” in the face of solid opposition during the last two days of open debate in the General Assembly.
Another AP story makes the important point that France refused to respond to the change of heart, although the Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov seemed delighted.
Continue reading... (370 words, estimated 1:29 mins reading time)
Thursday, October 17, 2002
Following his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon yesterday, President Bush announced that “If Iraq were to attack Israel tomorrow, I’m sure there would be appropriate response. I would assume the prime minister would respond. He’s got a desire to defend himself.” That was interpreted by many as implicit support for the Israeli position. It is widely assumed that the United States does not want Israel to become involved in any Gulf War, for fear that Israeli involvement would complicate alliances.Many news sources treated this as implicit endorsement, but the Jersusalem Post secured a quote from Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security Council. McCormack says that the President’s statement described an Israeli response to an unprovoked Iraqi attack, “If there’s a military action (by the US), that’s a qualitatively different situation.”
The Jerusalem Post has since posted a revised story which changes the “Bush hedges” headline to “Bush stops short of endorsing Israeli retaliation against Iraq”
The AP reported that during their meeting, Bush did not ask the Prime Minister to stand down if attacked in the course of a second Gulf War.
Continue reading... (296 words, estimated 1:11 mins reading time)
Wednesday, October 16, 2002
The New York Times is reporting that the compromise resolution being worked over by the US and France is all but doomed. After a month of negotiations, neither side has given any ground and both are equally convinced that they can get a majority vote in the Security Council. As a result, the White House rhetoric has veered towards openly advocating assassination and revolution in Iraq.
Slate‘s analysis of the NYT piece draws a straight line between the “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude of the White House towards a UN resolution and the effectiveness of the US diplomatic corps.
Tuesday, October 15, 2002
UNMOVIC head Hans Blix said for the first time that he needs a new resolution on Iraq from the UN Security Council. This is important, since many Security Council members have openly questioned the need for such a resolution. Blix also says that Iraqi waffling on inspection arrangements were inconsequential. “What we are now waiting for is not really so much for further clarifications, which would be nice to have, but rather a new resolution from the Security Council,” says Blix. He also cast doubt on the 19 October resumption of inspections, saying that his team could be in Iraq within 10 days of a new resolution.The Guardian characterized the UN activity as a “deadlock,” while the BBC has Blix patiently “waiting for a decision.”
Reuters framed Blix’ announcement as a reaction to Iraqi waffling on the Vienna agreement. The piece also points out that although Blix says his team will be ready ten days after a resolution, the current US draft has provisions which could force a 30-day wait.
Continue reading... (315 words, estimated 1:16 mins reading time)
Iraq presented a letter to the UN today, agreeing to admit inspectors on 19 October. The letter failed, however, to respond directly to a letter from UNMOVIC head Hans Blix, which requested confirmation of the conclusions from the earlier meetings in Vienna. Iraq says it endorsed the joint press conference that followed the meetings, and Blix’s briefing notes two days after that. All other questions are being dealt with in good faith, says Iraqi UN ambassador Mohammed Aldouri. “We are not surprised that the Iraqis are once again attempting to delay and deceive,” says the US ambassador’s spokesman.
The UN will begin open debate on the Iraq issue on Wednesday, at the behest of South Africa, which leads the 131-nation majority “Non-Aligned Movement.”
BBC has the UK Home Secretary Jack Straw less upset than US officials about the Iraq walkback. Straw also said that Iraq’s response is a result of the threat of force.
The New York Times reported on Friday that the Bush Administration is considering a provisional military government in Iraq, similar to MacArthur’s military government in post-war Japan. The plan includes indicting Iraqi officials for war crimes, and after “months or years” would become an elected civilian government. In the meantime, any partners in the US-led coalition would share in the duties of administration, sharing in Iraqi oil revenues in the process. This “occupation government” design is a change from the previously assumed plans to use Iraqi dissidents to form the basis for a civilian government. The White House acknowledged that it was considering a number of possible post-war sceanrios, and that this was one of the least likely.
AP has the Arab League and Iraqi dissidents opposed to the move, for specious reasons.
The Guardian, on the other hand, has the primary Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress supporting the action. The Guardian also reiterates a point in the NYT piece about the US concern over infighting between Iraqi ethnic groups, and its reluctance to place any weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an unstable government or worse, an outright anarchy.
Continue reading... (274 words, estimated 1:06 mins reading time)
The Senate approved the House resolution allowing President Bush to attack Iraq, 77 to 23, without amendement. The House version is H.J. Res. 114, and the Senate version is S.J. Res. 45. The Clerk of the House has made available the roll call for H.J. Res. 114. The Senate roll call is also available.
The New York Times provides some reasons that the otherwise dovish Senators voted for the measure. In particular, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) decided that approving the resolution was the only way to avoid war, as the President would need the resolution in order to approach the UN Security Council effectively. Senator Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) decided that the nation must speak with “one voice” on the issue. A seperate piece theorizes that many House Democrats are in seats made safe by redistricting, and so felt more freedom to vote their conscience.
The Boston Globe adds that many opposed were concerned about the foreign policy implications in setting a precedent for pre-emptive attacks.
I'm the Chief Technology Strategist for the Red Hat US Public Sector group, an open source and free culture advocate, a picky drinker, an amateur aesthete, and a dog enthusiast.
more...