[ekonomi-nasional] UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion

2009-11-27 Terurut Topik Harlizon MBAu
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091127/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_iraq_inquiry

UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion

By DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writer David Stringer, Associated Press
Writer – Fri Nov 27, 11:26 am ET

LONDON – The United States was hell bent on a 2003 military invasion of
Iraq and actively undermined efforts by Britain to win international
authorization for the war, a former British diplomat told an inquiry Friday.

Jeremy Greenstock, British ambassador to the United Nations from 1998 to
2003, said that President George W. Bush had no real interest in attempts to
agree on a U.N. resolution to provide explicit backing for the conflict.

The ex-diplomat, who served as Britain's envoy in Iraq after the invasion,
said serious preparations for the war had begun in early 2002 and took on an
unstoppable momentum.

As diplomats frantically attempted in early 2003 to agree upon a U.N.
resolution approving a military offensive, Bush's key aides grew impatient —
criticizing the process as an unnecessary distraction, he said.

Grumbling from Washington included noises about 'this is a waste of time,
what we need is regime change, why are we bothering with this, we must sweep
this aside and do what's going to have to be done anyway — and deal with
this with the use of force,' Greenstock testified before the inquiry into
the Iraq war.

Several nations had hoped to stall the invasion of Iraq to allow U.N.
weapons inspectors more time to search for evidence that Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction — the key justification for the war. No such weapons were
ever found.

Yet Bush's inner circle cared little about what international allies thought
and refused to halt plans to invade in March 2003, Greenstock said. He said
even Blair was unable to persuade Bush, winning only a brief hiatus of two
weeks.

The momentum for earlier action in the United States was much too strong
for us to counter, Greenstock said in a written statement to the inquiry,
provided alongside his live testimony.

Britain's inquiry is the most exhaustive study yet into the war and will
seek evidence from former Prime Minister Tony Blair, military officials and
spy agency chiefs. It won't apportion blame or establish criminal or civil
liability. But it will offer recommendations by late 2010 on how to prevent
mistakes from being repeated in the future.

Greenstock told the five-person inquiry panel that the failure to win U.N.
approval for the war had seriously undermined the legitimacy of the
conflict.

He said, in his opinion, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was legal — a view
rejected by critics who say it violated international law — but was of
questionable legitimacy.

It did not have the democratically observable backing of the great majority
of member states, or even perhaps of the majority of people inside the
U.K., he said.

In London, an anti-war rally in 2003 drew an estimated 2 million
demonstrators — the largest street protest in a generation.

Greenstock told the panel he had his own doubts, and had threatened to
resign if no international backing was agreed upon. His threat came before a
Nov. 2002 resolution that offered Iraq a final opportunity to disarm and
demanded access for weapons inspectors.

Efforts to agree on a sterner resolution authorizing military action
foundered because the international community believed the U.S. was hell
bent on the use of force regardless of world opinion, Greenstock said.

The United States was not proactively supportive of the U.K.'s efforts and
seemed to be preparing for conflict whatever the U.K. decided to do,
Greenstock wrote in his statement.

Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to the U.S., told the inquiry
Thursday that he believed Bush and Blair had used a meeting at Bush's ranch
in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, to sign in blood an agreement to take
military action on Iraq. That was a year before Parliament approved
Britain's involvement.

Greenstock said following the Crawford meeting, he realized Britain was
being drawn into quite a different discussion. But, like Meyer, he said the
talks were secretive and the conversation between the two leaders was not
disclosed to officials.

___

On the Net::

Iraq inquiry 
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_re_eu/storytext/eu_britain_iraq_inquiry/34229000/SIG=1103f3dq6/*http:/www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/

Greenstock's statement
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/38479/sirjeremygreenstock-statement.pdfhttp://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_re_eu/storytext/eu_britain_iraq_inquiry/34229000/SIG=12dhueodq/*http:/www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/38479/sirjeremygreenstock-statement.pdf


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Ingin bergabung ke milis ekonomi-nasional?
Kirim email ke ekonomi-nasional-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
http://capresindonesia.wordpress.com
http://infoindonesia.wordpress.comYahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your

[ekonomi-nasional] World's patience with Iran is limited: White House

2009-11-27 Terurut Topik Harlizon MBAu
World's patience with Iran is limited: White House

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091127/ts_nm/us_nuclear_iran_usa

By Andrew Quinn and Jeff Mason Andrew Quinn And Jeff Mason –
1 hr 35 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The world is losing patience with Iran's behavior
over its nuclear program and Tehran will be responsible for the consequences
if it fails to meet its obligations, the White House said on Friday.

Robert Gibbs, President Barack Obama's chief spokesman, said a vote by the
U.N. nuclear watchdog to rebuke Iran illustrated the resolve and unity of
the international community over Iran's nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors voted 25-3 to
censure Iran in a decision that gained rare backing from Russia and China,
which have in the past blocked attempts to isolate Iran, a trade partner for
both.

Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time
is running out, Gibbs said in a statement.

If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for
its own growing isolation and the consequences.

U.S. officials emphasized the IAEA's vote showed a broad consensus among
global powers.

The fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in
favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international
deficit of confidence in its intentions, Gibbs said.

One U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, stressed that a
package of consequences would result if Iran did not prove to be a serious
partner in talks with world powers about its nuclear program.

Western governments fear the program is aimed at producing nuclear
weaponsbut Iran denies the charge.

'CLEAR MESSAGE'

We hope that the board of governors resolution reinforces the message that,
you know, we're committed to putting together a package of consequences if
we don't find a willing partner, the official told reporters.

We hope Iran takes note of that clear message.

The U.S. envoy to the IAEA, Ambassador Glynn Davies, said in Vienna on
Friday that international patience with Iran was running out and that round
after round of fruitless talks could not continue.

The U.S. official declined to be drawn on what sort of consequences were
being contemplated, although British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said
harsher sanctions could be on the way if Iran ignored the IAEA vote.

Obama and European leaders have given Iran until the end of the year to
begin talks on the nuclear stalemate.

The U.S. official said Russia and China, along with other negotiators United
States, Britain, France, and Germany, were agreed on what should happen next
if Tehran fails to respond.

It is significant, as I said before, that both of those parties strongly
supported this step in the board of governors, the official said, referring
to Russia and China.

They are fully committed to a two-track strategy ... we intend to take this
very steadily and step by step.

Another U.S. official said China -- seen as the most reluctant of the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to sanction Iran -- had
played a useful role in the IAEA discussion and even suggested language that
was included in the final resolution.

They had a certain degree of authorship, the official, also speaking on
condition of anonymity, said, calling final passage of the resolution very
much a collective effort.

(Additional reporting by David Alexander in Washington and Mark Heinrich in
Vienna; editing by Mohammad Zargham)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Ingin bergabung ke milis ekonomi-nasional?
Kirim email ke ekonomi-nasional-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
http://capresindonesia.wordpress.com
http://infoindonesia.wordpress.comYahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ekonomi-nasional/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ekonomi-nasional/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
ekonomi-nasional-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
ekonomi-nasional-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ekonomi-nasional-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/