The United States has reached new levels of diplomatic arrogance insisting that Iraq disarm AND, now also, change regimes. This new demand from Washington clearly ups the ante in the mid-east situation and puts the US on a different track than the United Nations.
Some in the international community think Washington, and the British, have gone too far. The Canadian prime minister, Jean Chr�tien, in Mexico City where he is consulting on the Iraq issue, said today with visible agitation: "If you start changing regimes, where do you stop, this is the problem? Who is next? Give me the list, the priorities."
When asked whether Mr. Bush's standard for war goes beyond that of the United Nations, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman said, "It's disarmament and regime change." Fleischer admitted that while deposing Saddam Hussein wasn't necessarily a goal of the United Nations, it was a personal goal of President George W. Bush.
Russian foreign minister, Igor S. Ivanov, derided the variety of America's stated goals for Iraq. "The talk now is not about disarmament but about a change of regime," Mr. Ivanov said to reporters in Beijing. "In recent days, the military option against Iraq is posed like a step aimed at democratic transformations in the Arab world."
Mr. Ivanov added that "Russia has the right to veto" and "will use it if it is necessary in the interests of international stability."
"Russia will not support a resolution or resolutions which directly or indirectly open a way towards a power solution of the Iraqi problem," Mr. Ivanov said.
The United States, Britain and Spain introduced a resolution Monday in the Security Council. It needs nine votes to pass. A veto would kill it.
France, Russia and Germany have offered the Council an alternate suggestion – though not in the form of a resolution – which envisages another four months of inspections.
France or Russia could block the British-American-Spanish resolution with vetos, or simply by obtaining 7 of the 15 Council votes.
