ODD HOW THESE TWO STORIES CONVERGE, EH?:

U.S. Claims New Support for U.N. Resolution (Alan Elsner, 3/12/03, Reuters)

The United States appeared to be moving closer on Wednesday to a U.N. Security Council majority for a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, as Britain proposed confronting President Saddam Hussein with a set of tough new demands to avoid a military onslaught.

A senior U.S. official said the United States had positive responses from three African members of the Security Council -- Angola, Cameroon and Guinea -- which had previously been uncommitted. "We're assured by what we heard from them," said the official, who asked not to be named.

If confirmed, that would bring support for the war resolution in the 15-member Security Council up to seven, two short of the nine votes needed for passage. A veto from France, Russia or China, all of which are on record as opposing the resolution, would still kill it. [...]

Apart from the African trio, the other uncommitted Security Council nations were Mexico, Pakistan and Chile. Definitely in favor of the resolution were the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. Against were Russia, China, France, Germany and Syria.

In another sign of the intense diplomatic pressure Washington was bringing to bear, the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, warned Moscow to think twice and "carefully weigh all the consequences," before using its U.N. veto.

U.S. officials said there was still a chance Russia and China would abstain, but France was seen as a definite 'no' vote. However, that outcome would allow Washington to argue that it had international legitimacy and that France was the country defying the world community.

The French Connection (WILLIAM SAFIRE, March 13, 2003, NY Times)

France, China and Syria all have a common reason for keeping American and British troops out of Iraq: the three nations may not want the world to discover that their nationals have been illicitly supplying Saddam Hussein with materials used in building long-range surface-to-surface missiles.

We are not talking about the short-range Al Samoud 2, which Saddam is ostentatiously destroying to help his protectors avert an invasion, nor his old mobile Scuds. The delivery system for mass destruction warheads requires a much more sophisticated propulsion system and fuels.

If you were running the Iraqi ballistic missiles project, where in the world would you go to buy the chemical that is among the best binders for solid propellant?

Answer: to 116 DaWu Road in Zibo, a city in the Shandong Province of China, where a company named Qilu Chemicals is a leading producer of a transparent liquid rubber named hydroxy terminated polybutadiene, familiarly known in the advanced-rocket trade as HTPB.

But you wouldn't want the word "chemicals" to appear anywhere on the purchase because that might alert inspectors enforcing sanctions, so you employ a couple of cutouts. One is an import-export company with which Qilu Chemicals often does business.

To be twice removed from the source, you would turn to CIS Paris, a Parisian broker that is active in dealings of many kinds with Baghdad. Its director is familiar with the order but denies being the agent.

A shipment of 20 tons of HTPB, whose sale to Iraq is forbidden by U.N. resolutions and the oil-for-food agreement, left China in August 2002 in a 40-foot container. It arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus (fortified by the Knights Templar in 1183, and the Mediterranean terminus for an Iraqi oil pipeline today) and was received there by a trading company that was an intermediary for the Iraqi missile industry, the end user. The HTPB was then trucked across Syria to Iraq. [...]

The French connection - brokering the deal among the Chinese producer, the Syrian land transporter and the Iraqi buyer - is no great secret to the world's arms merchants. French intelligence has long been aware of it. The requirement for a French export license as well as U.N. sanctions approval may have been averted by disguising it as a direct offshore sale from China to Syria.

We yield to no one in our loathing for France, but if it does turn out that their opposition to war is being driven in any significant way by their need to cover-up such things we should seek to indict Jacques Chirac personally.

MORE:
Report: U.S. one vote away from Security Council majority on Iraq (Ha'aretz, 3/13/03)

The Bush administration believes that it is one vote shy of having nine of 15 votes needed on a UN Security Council resolution giving Iraq an ultimatum to disarm, CNN quoted two senior U.S. State Department officials as saying Wednesday.

These officials said the administration will focus its diplomatic energies on Mexico and Chile to secure their backing, and that the U.S. is confident it has the support of the three African members of the Security Council - Cameroon, Guinea and Angola - despite a visit this week by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to lobby for support opposing the resolution.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, "I wouldn't deny that we are making progress but I don't want to mislead you into thinking that we've got it in the bag."

"We stay fixated on the rule that you don't count your chickens until the cows come home," he told a briefing. Boucher was referring to Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, as well as the other undecided members -- Chile, Mexico and Pakistan.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 12, 2003 10:07 PM