There appears to be modest progress on a new UN Security Council resolution. The US has long demanded that any new resolution on Iraqi weapons inspections have “teeth,” citing a decade of obstruction by the Iraqi government. France, China, Russia and others have stressed that diplomatic and political efforts are more effective than putting a gun to Iraq’s head. A consensus is building around a resolution which mentions dire consequences of attack, but does not explicitly authorize the use of force.
Washington Post says that UNMOVIC’s Hans Blix objected to a US proposal that would allow UNMOVIC to pull Iraqi scientists and officials out of Iraq for interviews.
The LA Times has a two bullets for the American reasons the resolution needs “teeth”:
-
The
Washington believes that weapons inspectors will have no leverage over Iraq unless the threat of force looms. - A measure now that does not approve the use of force could lead to another, potentially time-consuming diplomatic clash some months down the road.
At the same time, LAT mentions that White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer responded to questions about the President’s possibly flexible policy on the UN conditions: “‘How do you know the president has not moved?’ he asked. ‘I submit to you that much of these negotiations are, as you would expect, diplomatic conversations that take place in private.'”
The BBC takes a completely different tack, not unexpectedly, saying that the US has met strengthening opposition at the UN. The Beeb agrees, though, that everyone thinks a new inspection regime is necessary.
a technology job is no excuse 