March 12, 2003
UNO MAS
Source: Chile, Mexico are holdouts on IraqOfficial: U.S. still needs one vote on U.N. resolution (CNN.com)
The Bush administration believes that it is one vote shy of having nine of 15 votes needed on a U.N. Security Council resolution that sets a Monday deadline for Iraqi compliance, a senior U.S. State Department official said, and officials are focusing diplomatic energies on Mexico and Chile to secure their backing.I have no idea if this is true. I'm pretty sure that I think that leaking it is a bad idea, regardless of whether its true. But, wow. As I've said before, I think that a majority of the council is more important than avoiding a veto. Now, how do we get Mexico and Chile on board? Posted by David Cohen at March 12, 2003 10:45 AM
David:
That we would have to "wonder" how does the US (in general) and how does a Bush (in particular) get Mexico and Chile on board makes this Hispanic-American sick to my stomach.
It was GHWB who first risked political capital to get NAFTA tabled; and it was thanks to Republican leadership that it was approved in Congress. Mexico's membership in NAFTA has been crucial in immunizig Mexico from the economic malaise that is spreading in LA. Recently, it was GWB who introduced Chile as the first candidate to enter a "quasi NAFTA".
Sure, both of these countries have acted responsibly over the last 20 and 10 years (Chile, Mexico), and in so have helped themselves. It is time they acted likewise in the Security Council.
Have you called the embassy and left a strongly worded message with the Ambassador?
Have you made an effort to avoid any personal spending on products imported into the USA from Mexico?
Just for starters, of course.
It seems equally implausible that Mexico and Chile would not be onboard far earlier than Guinea, Angola, Cameroon, and Pakistan, and that the State Dept would have anything to gain by leaking disinformation about this. Surely, Mexico and Chile will be on our side when the vote goes down.
Posted by: pj at March 12, 2003 11:26 AMAt the risk of being labelled a waffler by OJ, just wanted to note that stories are appearing that the 2nd resolution may not be put to the SC because France would veto. If true this is stupid because the only remaining point to make is that the SC is useless. It would also make Bush look terrible after he flatly stated at his press conference there would be a vote.
I agree Chile and Mexico should be in our corner and would be stupid not to be.
Unfortunately, even with Chile and Mexico the US needs 3 of the remaining 4 which doesn't appear likely.
AWW:
The liberation of Iraq begins on Friday--who cares if they vote first.