U.S., Brits In Full Court Press At U.N.
The U.S. and Britain are offering new concessions, including a deadline later than March 17, in an effort to get the undecided nations on the U.N. Security council to vote for their resolution opening the way for war against Iraq, reports CBS News Correspondent Bill Plante.
A winning vote is most critical for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is under heavy fire at home for pledging Britain's military to a U.S.-led war. His new proposal, as he told Parliament Wednesday, lays out very specific conditions.
"What we're looking at is whether we can set out a very clear set of tests for Iraq to meet to demonstrate that it is in full compliance – not partial compliance – but full compliance," Blair said.
The British conditions include:
President Bush, who six months ago Wednesday told the U.N. that the Security Council's demands would be enforced or else, spent a third day largely out of sight, on the phone with other leaders, urging passage of the U.S. resolution – a resolution he says he doesn't need to go to war.
His spokesman made it clear, though, that the president's efforts are strictly an effort to help the allies, particularly Britain.
"Let me put it to you this way," said press secretary Ari Fleischer, "the president is going the last mile for diplomacy. We shall see if the other nations on the Security Council are willing to entertain that last mile."
Fleischer said talks among the United States, Britain and other countries were ongoing. He avoided all discussion of the British proposal, except to state that "nothing has been formally tabled yet" at the United Nations.
The administration also had strong words of criticism for French President Jacques Chirac, who has threatened to veto the U.S.-backed resolution. With unusual bluntnesss, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Chirac's opposition was sending "precisely the wrong signal to Baghdad" and making it less likely Iraq could be disarmed.
Meanwhile, diplomats from the swing vote countries on the council have proposed that Saddam be given 45 days to meet benchmarks. But that proposal appeared out of the question for the United States and Britain.
"The idea that we can leave British and American troops down there for months on an indefinite time scale without insisting clearly that Saddam disarms, that would send not just a message out to Saddam but a message of weakness right across the world," Blair told the House of Commons.
The White House has insisted a vote at the Security Council will take place this week, although some advisers are reportedly suggesting a delay to avoid defeat at the council.
There is also the possibility the resolution might never come to a vote. Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said that because of the veto threat, "not putting it to a vote is a possibility which is being considered."
Before the British move on Wednesday, it appeared that a carefully worded compromise could get the United States the nine necessary "yes" votes it needs to have a majority in the council to pass the U.S.-British-Spanish resolution.
Senior diplomats said that despite rhetoric from Islamabad, Pakistan appeared to now be on board with the United States. By some tallies, that gives the United States the support of Britain, Spain, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Cameroon and Mexico, meaning it only needs two of the other three undecideds — Guinea, Angola and Chile.
Syria and Germany were expected to oppose the resolution or abstain along with France, Russia and China.
The British proposal did not appear to address the complaints of France or Russia, who have threatened to veto any resolution approving war that contains ultimatums or "automaticity." The new British plan appears to contain both.
Blair is already in a political battle at home over his staunch support for President Bush and the campaign to oust Saddam. War in Iraq without U.N. approval is now supported by fewer than 20 percent of Britons.
And the suggestion Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the U.S. didn't need Britain and could wage war alone, even if true, was no help to the prime minister, reports CBS News Correspondent Richard Roth.
London dismissed the remarks and Rumsfeld later released a statement saying he has "every reason to believe" the British will make a significant contribution. Britain is the only American ally to make a substantial commitment to a possible war, with some 40,000 troops alongside U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf.
In other developments: