Ivanov Says Russia Will Veto U.S.-Backed Resolution on Iraq

[anitram]

From The New York Times:

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Monday Russia would vote against the new draft U.N. resolution on Iraq, a move that would veto the U.S.-sponsored measure.

"Russia thinks that now there is no need for any new U.N. resolutions, and that is why Russia has openly declared that if the draft that has been submitted for consideration, and which contains unfulfillable ultimatum-type demands, will be put to vote, Russia will vote against this resolution," he said.

Ivanov did not use the word "veto" but a Russian foreign ministry spokesman confirmed that he meant exactly that.

Ivanov, speaking at a ceremony at a Moscow university, said U.N. weapons inspectors needed several more months to finish their work in Iraq, where they are looking for suspected weapons of mass destruction.

"Today when we have a real possibility to answer the outstanding questions and do so not within years, but within months. This way is real, reliable and it allows us to resolve the problem through political means and defuse the Iraqi crisis," he said.

The Washington-sponsored draft resolution would set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm. Russia is one of the five permanent members with veto powers in the 15-strong U.N. Security Council.

Ivanov said last week's report by the weapons inspectors to the Council offered no grounds for launching a war against Iraq.

His remarks followed Russian President Vladimir Putin's telephone conversations with French President Jacques Chirac on Sunday and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Monday where they agreed that there were chances of a "peaceful solution" to the crisis.

Moscow, Paris and Berlin have promised to "assume full responsibility" in stopping a U.N. resolution that would authorize automatic use of force against Baghdad. Washington has massed troops in the region and has said it is ready to attack.

 

[The Wanderer]

it seems like the Russians are saying something different every other day

 

[verte76]

Who knows what the hell is going to happen with this. I saw a report that a member of Tony Blair's Cabinet has threatened to resign if Britain goes to war without a U.N. resolution. Political considerations may have alot to do with what eventually happens. I'm stiill waiting for the first day of the war, but the news certainly isn't boring me to death.

 

[anitram]

France has now indicated they, too, will veto. From BBC:

French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.

Mr Chirac's comments echoed an earlier statement by the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who said his country too would vote against the draft resolution proposed by the US and the UK.

It is the first time France and Russia, both veto-wielding members of the Security Council, have explicitly said they would use their veto to block the resolution.

And in another blow to the US and UK, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has spoken out against any military action against Iraq that lacks the support of the Security Council.

The members of the Security Council faced a grim task, Mr Annan said.

"If they fail to agree on a common position and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action would be seriously impaired," he said.

Better life

Speaking on French television, Mr Chirac said he did not believe the resolution had sufficient support to be passed by the Security Council.

But if it did gain the necessary nine votes, France would veto it.

"France will not accept this resolution. France will vote no," Mr Chirac said.

Hours earlier, Mr Ivanov said the draft resolution was impossible to fulfil and ran counter to the policy currently being implemented under resolution 1441.

The White House has said it hopes Russia and France will not use their veto.

"If they were to veto...it would be, from a moral point, more than a disappointment. It would let down millions of people around the world, in this case Iraq, who deserve to be free and have a better life," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

I am interested in what this means for Tony Blair who is facing ovewhelming public opinion against a strike without a 2nd resolution, not to mention the current threat of labour cabinet members resigning.

 

[verte76]

France has now indicated they, too, will veto. From BBC:



I am interested in what this means for Tony Blair who is facing ovewhelming public opinion against a strike without a 2nd resolution, not to mention the current threat of labour cabinet members resigning.

Blair is in all kinds of trouble. There is at least one Cabinet resignation threat, not to mention lower-lever resignations that have already taken place. Only 15% of the British people approve of a war without a UN resolution. Bush's job approval rating is at its lowest since 9/11, 54%. While this is not a horrible figure it's lower and could mean he's running out of gas over the bungling of this whole deal as well as the sour economy.

 

[UKTan]

Blair is in all kinds of trouble. There is at least one Cabinet resignation threat, not to mention lower-lever resignations that have already taken place. Only 15% of the British people approve of a war without a UN resolution. Bush's job approval rating is at its lowest since 9/11, 54%. While this is not a horrible figure it's lower and could mean he's running out of gas over the bungling of this whole deal as well as the sour economy.

Hi Verte,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2835519.stm, another article that kinda follows on from what u are saying.

I have to confess, altho I don't agree with going to war on Iraq at this point, Blair has shown far more backbone than I would have ever have thought before.

He really is up against it back at home and I think he's backed himself into a corner that he can't poss escape from if he doesn't get that 2nd resolution.

and, another article, again, not to provoke anyone, but just an interesting read (esp about how things are reported differently)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2805351.stm

 

[verte76]

Hi Verte,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2835519.stm, another article that kinda follows on from what u are saying.

I have to confess, altho I don't agree with going to war on Iraq at this point, Blair has shown far more backbone than I would have ever have thought before.

He really is up against it back at home and I think he's backed himself into a corner that he can't poss escape from if he doesn't get that 2nd resolution.

and, another article, again, not to provoke anyone, but just an interesting read (esp about how things are reported differently)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2805351.stm

Thanks for the informative links. I'm trying not to make an out of myself by being an American commenting on British politics. There was a big time report on my ISP's home page on the political disputes in the Labour Party.