From: John McAuliff <jmcauliff@ffrd.org>
Subject: International positions; stock market question


Two pieces from the Guardian provide a better sense of what is happening on the UN resolution front than I have seen in the US media.  A key debate on the resolution in Congress will be how much to tie US action to the UN process. 

Some activist groups are proposing sit-ins in Congressional district offices.  For certain the issue of the breadth and intensity of constituent sentiment will be a factor in how Congress votes.  The Republicans obviously think war fever benefits them electorally, but they could be surprised if the Democrats convince voters they are serious about an alternative.

Have there been any reports that a contributing factor to the decline of the stock market has been the withdrawal of European and Arab investments?  Since our economic bubble has been sustained for years by foreign investments offsetting a substantial persistent trade deficit, the consequences of disillusionment, incredulity or anger abroad could be far reaching.

Happy weekend

John


Britain and US agree Iraq line

Nicholas Watt, Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow and Oliver Burkeman in New York
Friday September 27, 2002
The Guardian

Britain and the United States finally reached agreement yesterday on a tough United Nations security council resolution which threatens Saddam Hussein with severe consequences if he fails to grant weapons inspectors unfettered access to Iraq.

Hopes of passing the resolution before Iraqi officials meet the chief weapons inspector next week were dashed, however, when Russia, China and France expressed grave reservations about the Anglo-American text.

As British and American diplomats at the UN in New York distributed their proposed resolution to diplomats from the "sceptical three", who all wield the power of veto on the security council, the Russian president Vladimir Putin said he saw no reason for a fresh resolution.

In a flurry of diplomatic activity among the three, Mr Putin then discussed the Anglo-American resolution with Jacques Chirac, his French counterpart. Mr Chirac also held talks with Zhu Rongji, who is understood to have lent Chinese support to a French proposal to adopt a softer approach to Iraq by tabling two resolutions. One would call for a tough inspections regime, leaving the prospect of military action to a second resolution which would only be agreed if Iraq flouted the UN.

The French initiative has been rejected by the Americans, highlighting the gulf separating the permanent members of the security council. France, Russia and China are concerned that the Americans and British have drawn up their resolution in such strong terms that George Bush would be able to use the slightest slip up by the Iraqis as a pretext to launch amilitary assault.

Britain will try to allay these fears by pointing out that it succeeded in persuading the Americans to tone down the language threatening military action. The Anglo-American negotiations are understood to have taken longer than expected after Britain insisted that the resolution could not be seen as a "ruse to whack Saddam", as one official put it.

"We wanted to make clear that there is a proper process," the official said. "Saddam Hussein must know he has a choice - comply or face the consequences. But the possibility of compliance must be set out clearly in the resolution."

While Britain hopes that this might provide some assurance for the "sceptical three", officials accept that they face a gruelling round of negotiations to agree a final text. A vote on a resolution is not expected to take place until well into next week.

The delayed timetable indicates that the security council is unlikely to reach agreement before the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, meets Iraqi officials in Baghdad next week. Britain and the US had hoped to step up the pressure on Iraq by agreeing a tough resolution by the time Mr Blix sets the terms for the return of his inspectors. There are fears in London and Washington that Saddam will attempt to impose new restrictions on the inspectors by blocking access to his so-called "presidential palaces".

Washington embarked on a fresh round of negotiations to try to win over the sceptics as soon as Britain and the US agreed a new text.

Colin Powell, the secretary of state, telephoned his French, Russian and Chinese counterparts. The US deputy under secretary of state, Marc Grossman, is also expected to travel to Moscow.

But the Kremlin appeared to be on a collision course with Washington after Mr Putin broke his lengthy silence over Iraq to dismiss the need for a new UN resolution as he urged the world to seek a quick political and diplomatic solution on the basis of existing resolutions.

In a move to clarify the Russian position, which has wavered between support for a new resolution and opposition to such a move, Mr Putin called for the crisis to be resolved using "political diplomatic methods based on existing UN security council resolutions and in strict compliance with the rules and regulations of international law."

UN's big five prepare for tough talks

Diplomacy US seeks council backing for 'brief' resolution

Oliver Burkeman in New York, Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow, Jon Henley in Paris, John Gittings in Shanghai and Nicholas Watt
Thursday September 26, 2002
The Guardian

Diplomats from the "big five" powers, which call the shots at the United Nations, are bracing themselves for a fresh round of intensive negotiations on Iraq.

The moment that the United States tables its draft resolution in a public sitting of the security council, the doors will close again as diplomats from the US, Britain, France, China and Russia work round the night to agree a final text.

While there are small differences between Britain and the US, the main bones of contention are between the "sceptical three". They are: Russia, which initially saw no need for a fresh resolution after Iraq's offer to re-admit inspectors; France, which believes that Iraq should be treated carefully with a two-stage process; and China, which is wary of America throwing its weight around.

United States

Washington's commitment to a new resolution authorising the use of force if Saddam Hussein fails to allow unfettered inspections remains the unshiftable bedrock of negotiations at the UN.

But last-minute tensions arose following the US secretary of state, Colin Powell's declaration, in a BBC radio interview, that Washington might pursue "regime change" in Iraq even if the Iraqi leader complies fully with weapons inspections, a position to which none of the other permanent security council members subscribe. American officials sought to defuse any potential dispute, insisting that the resolution text proposed by the US would focus only on disarmament and the consequences for President Saddam if he frustrated inspections.

It would be brief and simply worded, they said, declaring Iraq in "material breach" of the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire, setting out terms and a timeframe for new inspections, and concluding that if Iraq failed to comply, it could be forced to do so by all necessary means.

The US gave a frosty reception to French suggestions of a two-resolution approach, requiring the security council to agree on military action at some stage in the future. Although Washington had not closed the door on that option, the official said, "we think one resolution can do all of this, and if you try to move beyond one, it gives the Iraqis many opportunities to divide the council".

Britain

London agrees with the US that a tough new inspections regime must be established and that the threat of military action must be spelt out to Iraq - in diplomatic terms - if it refuses to comply.

But relations between the two great allies hit a snag this week when the British ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, appeared to suggest that the US had placed its "regime change" policy on ice.

British diplomats embarked on a frantic damage limitation exercise, claiming that Sir Jeremy's remarks had been taken out of context at a lunch of the 10 rotating members of the security council who lack the power of veto.

Officials, who insisted that Sir Jeremy was not rewriting American foreign policy, was attempting to win round waverers by saying that a successful inspections regime would put off the policy of "regime change".

Russia

Russia, which initially said that it saw no need for a fresh resolution in the light of Iraq's offer on inspectors, underlined its unease yesterday when it warned against the "propaganda furore" surrounding the Blair dossier against Iraq.

It called talk of the UN security council discussing a new resolution "premature", despite growing indications that the Kremlin is ready to discuss a draft text and considers a security council vote inevitable.

Russia's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said in Moscow: "I believe that only specialists and experts can judge whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. It is not worth creating a great propaganda furore around this report."

He added that Russia would not oppose "consultations [on] the swiftest return of international inspectors. [But] it is absolutely premature to speak about any mutual drawing together of the positions of members of the UN security council on such a resolution, which is non-existent".

France

French officials yesterday denied rumours that France had already prepared a draft United Nations resolution on Iraq, insisting that Paris was not even convinced of the need for a new resolution. "We consider that the most important thing now is that the weapons inspectors are allowed in and have complete freedom to do their job," one source said.

But the officials said that France would "not object" to a supplementary resolution, providing it merely reiterated past requirements and "reminded Baghdad of its obligations". Paris would welcome a deadline for the inspectors' return, they said, but not any reference to the possible consequences of non-compliance.

China

China is trying desperately to steer a middle line on the Iraq crisis which will keep intact US-China relations while not giving a blank cheque to President Bush.

A unilateral US war on Iraq would be a nightmare scenario, especially with President Jiang Zemin due to visit President Bush on his Crawford ranch later next month, shortly before a crucial congress of the communist party in November.

Premier Zhu Rongji, now on a European tour, has been the only Chinese leader to outline Beijing's position.He has not ruled out a new UN resolution but warns that any measures taken should respect Iraq's "rational concerns about security".

Mr Zhu has called on Iraq to submit to the inspectors without prevarication, making it clear that China has no illusions about Saddam Hussein. Yet he says there should be no use of force without "irrefutable evidence" from the inspectors, and any action must have UN approval.