EYE ON THE GULF: U.S. to wage war without U.N. OK? Amid diplomatic setbacks, Bush, Blair willing to go ahead under prior mandate

worldnetdaily.com Posted: March 13, 2003 5:00 p.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Amid new diplomatic setbacks, the United States said today it might go ahead with military action against Iraq without U.N. Security Council authorization.

The U.S. is seeking Security Council support for a proposed resolution – co-sponsored by Britain and Spain – that would give Iraq a few more days to comply with demands for disarmament, but Secretary of State Colin Powell said the new initiative might be pulled.

In that event, said Powell, the U.S. would go ahead with military action under the authority of previous resolutions. British Prime Minister Tony Blair argued today that the most recent mandate, resolution 1441, already gives authority to use force.

"The options remain, go for a vote and see what members say or not go for a vote," Powell told a U.S. congressional committee.

Powell said "all the options that you can imagine are before us and [we will] be examining them today, tomorrow and into the weekend."

Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan hinted this morning that he might entertain a proposal from President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil to convene a summit of world leaders in an attempt to head off war.

"President Lula sent me a message through his foreign minister on Monday night suggesting that maybe we try and bring together a group of world leaders, organize a summit with a group of leaders who are also searching for a compromise to get us out of this crisis," said Annan, in a brief session with reporters upon his return to U.N. headquarters.

The U.N. chief added that it would include "not necessarily council members, but interested heads of state in the world who are not on the council but are genuinely concerned to find a way out."

President Bush has stated he is willing to launch a war without U.N. backing, but his closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, facing strong opposition from his Labor Party, is seeking a compromise.

However, today France rejected Blair's proposal, which would set out six conditions for Iraq's disarmament.

French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin insisted that Iraq must be given a realistic deadline to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction.

"It's not about giving a few more days to Iraq before resorting to force but about resolutely advancing through peaceful disarmament," de Villepin said in a statement.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw retorted that the French minister's "extraordinary" statement made a peaceful resolution of the crisis "more difficult," and vowed to continue seeking support for the tests.

"What I however find extraordinary is that without even proper consideration the French Government decided they will reject these proposals adding to the statement that whatever the circumstances France will vote no," he said.

Straw said resolution 1441 placed obligations not only on Saddam Hussein, but on the Security Council members, "to see through the process of disarmament," hopefully by peaceful means, but by force if Iraq chose not to comply.

"What we are seeking to do is by this suggestion, these proposals of these tests, to ensure that even at this late stage there is a means by which Saddam can show reasonably that he is coming in to compliance with his obligations going back to 1991," Straw said.

In his briefing today, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer criticized France for rejecting "the logic of ultimatums."

"France also looked at the British proposal, and they rejected it before Iraq rejected it," he said. "If that isn't an unreasonable veto, what is? So we look at what France is doing, and we wish they were doing otherwise."

Britain has offered to drop one of its tests, a demand for Hussein to appear on Iraqi television and renounce past illegal weapons programs. British diplomats say they also are willing to substantially extend the proposed resolution's March 17 ultimatum, but the U.S. objected to anything more than a "very, very" modest extension.