UK and US delay Saddam deadline vote

The US and Britain were today forced to delay the United Nations Security Council vote in a bid to build up support, with France and Russia poised to block a resolution setting a March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm or face war.

America had hoped to present the resolution to the council tomorrow, but despite an urgent phone campaign waged by US President George Bush, it was evident the US and its allies had not yet picked up the nine votes they needed for a majority.

Even gathering nine “yes” votes wouldn’t guarantee approval, since a “no” vote by permanent council members France or Russia would count as a veto if the resolution otherwise had sufficient support. “No” votes by France and Russia also could defeat the resolution simply by keeping proponents from getting the nine votes they need.

French president Jacques Chirac declared that his country would vote against any resolution that opened the way to war. The Russians also said they would vote against the proposal as it was currently worded.

Behind the scenes, diplomats were discussing compromises, including extending the deadline and adding a list of tests – or “benchmarks”, as they are called - that the Iraqis must pass to prove their disarmament and co-operation.

Both the United States and Britain said they were willing to negotiate both the deadline and other changes to the resolution.

Some of the uncommitted countries were talking about delaying the deadline a month, until April 17 – though it was clear that such a proposal stood no chance with the United States, as hundreds of thousands of American soldiers awaited their orders in the Gulf.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said a vote on the resolution would not come tomorrow. He said consultations were taking place and a vote could come any time later in the week.

“The vote will be the day we get nine or 10 votes, and I think we’re getting close,” said Spanish Ambassador Inocencio Arias, whose country is co-sponsoring the resolution with the United States and Britain.

But on the surface, at least, today was not a good day for the coalition’s efforts.

Pakistan’s prime minister said for the first time publicly that his country, a key swing vote on the council, would not support war with Iraq. And Chile, another vote which Washington seeks, suggested it was not prepared to approve the resolution without changes.

“We know our vote in the council is very important, and that’s why we seek a different alternative to the resolution proposed last Friday,” said Chilean foreign minister Soledad Alvear.

The resolution – which authorises war any time after March 17 unless Iraq proves before then that it has disarmed – requires nine “yes” votes. Approval also requires that France, Russia and China withhold their vetoes – either by abstaining or voting in favour.

The United States is assured the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico leaning heavily toward the US position.

But with Germany, Syria and now Pakistan preparing abstentions or “no” votes, Washington is left trying to canvass the support of Chile, Angola and Guinea.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair struggled to head off a growing revolt within his own party unhappy with his Iraq policy. A third of Labour MPs are already on record opposing Blair’s pro-US stance, and today, International Development secretary Clare Short, threatened to quit over the issue.

Noting the pressure at home and at the United Nations, Blair said he was open to a compromise.

“We are talking to all the other countries about how we ensure that we can make a proper judgment about whether Saddam is co-operating or not,” he said.

“What people are asking us to do is define more precisely for them, to define what it is that would allow us to say, ’Yes, he is co-operating,’ or not.”

One example, Blair said, would be whether Iraq was allowing inspectors to interview scientists outside the country.

Diplomats said the benchmarks could be presented in the form of a presidential statement – a diplomatic text that everyone in the council could sign on to whether they supported the resolution or not.

The council was briefly united in November when it passed Resolution 1441, creating new powers for weapons inspectors and warning Iraq to accept a final opportunity to disarm or face serious consequences.

The United States and Britain believe Saddam Hussein has failed to meet those tests. Their resolution would authorise a war unless he could convince the council before March 17 that he had fully disarmed.

If the resolution is defeated, Bush and Blair have said they would be prepared to go to war anyway with a coalition of willing nations. But UN support would give the war international legitimacy and guarantee that members of the organisation share the costs of rebuilding Iraq.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking in the Netherlands, said: “If the United States and others would go outside the council and take military action, it will not be in conformity with the charter.

“The legitimacy and support of any such action will be seriously impaired.”