HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/14/wirq14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/03/14/ixportaltop.html Daily Telegraph March 14, 2003 White House tires of Blair's UN diplomacy By Toby Harnden in Washington -"We're not going to get a resolution," the senior official said. "The French and the Russians will veto. It doesn't matter what changes you make, the question is how long this is going to drag on." -"At a certain point here you have to wonder how much more delay, how much more confusion we can have internationally and all the rest of it. The Russians and the French have made it clear they're going to veto, so what exactly are we doing here?" -British diplomats have said that differences between the UK and US approaches were more apparent than real and stemmed from a choreographed "good cop, bad cop" routine. Hawks in the White House have criticised Tony Blair for his persistence in seeking a new United Nations resolution. The senior officials are urging George W Bush to press ahead with war. An outspoken attack on Mr Blair's policy at the UN by a Bush administration official reflected growing tensions in Anglo-American relations. "Blair is hurting himself by dragging this out," the official said. "It's not for Americans to tell British politicians how to behave. But what is he getting out of this? He should just stand up and say: 'We're ready to go.' " Such hardline comments from a key policy-maker showed that Mr Bush's decision to give Mr Blair another few days to pursue a vote at the UN was made in the teeth of opposition from elements of his administration. Previously, even the most hard-line aides in the US government had shied away from any sniping at Mr Blair, characterising him as a "stand-up guy" trying to do his best in the face of a difficult domestic situation. But the mood has darkened. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the UN, was singled out as undermining America's position by offering too many concessions in a futile attempt to secure another UN resolution. "People think that it's not so much Blair we're trying to accommodate as Jeremy Greenstock in New York, who is trying to convince Blair that you can get a UN resolution that he'll accept," the US official said. "He wants to make more compromises, a longer ultimatum period. This is a position Greenstock's had for weeks." There was widespread dismay within the Bush administration last week when Sir Jeremy indicated that the March 17 deadline could be extended to the end of the month. Mr Bush is understood to have agreed to a further slippage in the UN timetable after his telephone call with Mr Blair on Thursday. Having insisted that a vote had to take place by today, Mr Bush's reluctant acquiescence to a vote next week is likely to erode his credibility. However, there is a growing belief within the Bush administration that even nine "yes" votes will be elusive. "We're not going to get a resolution," the senior official said. "The French and the Russians will veto. It doesn't matter what changes you make, the question is how long this is going to drag on." Several sources within the Bush administration have said that the comments on Tuesday by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, that America might have to go to war without Britain, were an expression of frustration and a shot across Mr Blair's bows. The senior official suggested that the comments had forced the Prime Minister's hands. "In effect, he disagreed with Mr Rumsfeld's notion that Britain wouldn't participate. Well if that's the case what are they waiting for? He gets nothing out of this. This is just masochistic. "We're just haemorrhaging for no purpose. There's no up-side here other than for Blair. We're being kicked around worldwide. These newspaper stories about divisions and uncertainty are giving Saddam comfort. Just get it over with." The official said Mr Bush had "gone well along the way of trying to accommodate Blair" and emphasised that "we're only doing this [seeking another UN resolution] for him". It had been a mistake, he argued, to pursue another resolution. "I just think this is a fool's chase. The whole thing is. What is anybody getting by waiting if you believe Saddam is not going to disarm? Why not just go for it? "At a certain point here you have to wonder how much more delay, how much more confusion we can have internationally and all the rest of it. The Russians and the French have made it clear they're going to veto, so what exactly are we doing here?" Another source has said it was "unseemly" for the Americans to bribe and cajole "corrupt" African countries on the Security Council to get their votes. He said this had allowed critics of US policy to accuse Mr Bush of using "dollar diplomacy" to secure a "coalition of the billing" to attack Iraq. British diplomats have said that differences between the UK and US approaches were more apparent than real and stemmed from a choreographed "good cop, bad cop" routine. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bdn7KI.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================
