SANTIAGO, 11 March 2003 — Chilean President Ricardo Lagos said Sunday that Chile remains firmly behind a multilateral solution to the Iraq crisis after telephone conversations with French, British and Spanish leaders.
“I spoke with President (Jacques) Chirac, Prime Minister (Tony) Blair and the president of the Spanish government (Jose Maria) Aznar,” Lagos told reporters. “Each gave his point of view, how he sees the situation, if we still have grounds for discussion,” Lagos said.
“I explained the Chilean government’s position and we believe that there is still room for peace, and that is where we are,” he said. Chile has lobbied to give UN weapons inspectors more time to search for banned biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq. Spain, France, Great Britain and Chile are members of the UN Security Council, which was due to meet later yesterday to consider a draft resolution demanding Iraq disarm by March 17. The proposal was sponsored by Spain, Great Britain and the United States. Spain and Chile serve as non-permanent members.
Meanwhile, about 3,500 protesters in Santiago demanded “No War!” in the second anti-war demonstration in as many days. Lagos also spoke with Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo and President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia over the weekend. He spoke with US President George W. Bush on Friday.
“While the US resolution does grant additional time, I believe that period it too short,” he said. “Destruction of weapons could take two, three or four months. “Let (chief UN weapons inspector Hans) Blix continue to work until the arms are completely destroyed. “My question is: Is it possible to do that by the March 17 deadline? “I think not.” Chilean diplomats have sought to include stricter guidelines for Iraqi compliance with UN demands for disarmament within the resolution. Chile has held fast to a multilateral approach
Mexican President Vicente Fox is clinging to a neutral stance on Iraq, but analysts said Mexico is bound to back its powerful neighbor as the middle ground fades. Fox, who sees Mexico as a force for consensus, said over the weekend that he still has hope the Security Council will agree on a peaceful solution that also forces Iraq to disarm.
Analysts said that was an unrealistic stance as most of the other 14 council members have lined up for or against the measure backed by the United States and Britain. “There is no wiggle room to be neutral. We’re with them or we’re not,” Oscar Aguilar, political science professor at the Iberoamericana University, told Reuters. “The administration wants to vote ‘yes.’ But its hands are tied by ‘no’ pressures.”
In traditionally neutral Mexico, opinion polls show most people are opposed to attacking Iraq. “Mexico’s presence on the Security Council means Fox doesn’t have the luxury of indecision,” said Alejandro Poire, head of political science at Mexico’s ITAM University. Aguilar said Fox has led Mexicans to believe he will vote no, but probably will end up voting yes to avoid fallout with the United States, which buys some 90 percent of Mexico’s exports and is also home to millions of Mexican immigrants.
Fox’s comments last week gave observers whiplash. On Thursday, he said Mexico was against war, and the headlines the next day anticipated a no vote in the UN. But on Friday, after another in a string of phone conversations with US President George W. Bush, Fox blasted President Saddam Hussein.
Canada’s Prime Minister Jean Chretien said Sunday a war to disarm Iraq is unnecessary, and a superpower initiating regime change sets a “dangerous” international precedent. In an interview with United States-based ABC Television, Chretien said banned weapons were being destroyed and, therefore, Bush and his allies had already won. “The president has won,” Chretien said. “I have no doubt about it. He won.
“He (Bush) has troops at the door and inspectors on the ground, planes flying over and (Saddam) cannot do anything. And he started to destroy missiles. There’s no nuclear danger there.” Chretien called the US-Britain push for regime change in Iraq a “dangerous” move. “It’s something that I’m not very comfortable with ... because, where do you stop? You do that there and why not elsewhere?” Regime change is not the debate at the UN, he added. “The Americans are the only superpower now. You have to really be realistic about it, that makes some people nervous.”
Former US President Jimmy Carter, who has become an international peace mediator since he left the White House in 1981, on Sunday criticized the Bush administration’s plans to make war on Iraq, saying they violated 200 years of US principles. Writing in The New York Times, Carter said the war plans reversed “consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness.
“These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.”
