China opposes core of West's Iran resolution

[cal04]

China made clear on Monday that any reference to possible sanctions or war should be eliminated from a U.N. resolution ordering Tehran to curb its nuclear program. China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, spoke before his own foreign minister and those of Russia, Britain, France and Germany were to have dinner in New York with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Iran is the main topic.

Moscow and Beijing want a resolution but oppose invoking Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which is used routinely in dozens of Security Council resolutions for peacekeeping missions and other legally-binding actions. The United States, France and Britain insist on Chapter 7. It allows for sanctions and even war, but a separate resolution would be required to invoke further steps of that nature. Britain's U.N. ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, said if the ministers could agree "that the suspension would be mandatory" then U.N. ambassadors "could sort out the means."

Russia and China, which have veto power in the 15-nation Security Council, fear too much pressure on Iran would be self-defeating or precipitate an oil crisis. Both worry the United States would use a resolution under Chapter 7 to justify military action. "My position is clear, because Chapter 7 is about enforcement measures," Wang told reporters. "My understanding is that a resolution of the Security Council is itself legally binding, so all the parties have to implement Security Council resolutions." But he said China, which rarely uses it veto power, was "not thinking about a veto."

IMPASSE

One potential solution to the impasse, proposed by Russia, diplomats said, would be to limit references to one or two paragraphs of Chapter 7 as well as cut any reference to Iran being a threat to international peace and security.
But U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said, Chapter 7 was necessary. "That's why the draft is written the way it is ... and that's what we've been sticking with." France and Britain, authors of the U.S.-backed draft the council is discussing, said they were prepared to bring the measure to a vote this week, even without Russian or Chinese backing. But abstentions by either nation would show disunity.

more
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060509/wl_nm/iran_nuclear_un_dc

[AlamoDemoc]

1. If China and Russia both abstain from any resolution put forward

by the SC members against Iran, and if passes, it will be seen as binding resolution. Therefore, it is imperative that either China or Russia exercise their veto power on any resolution with regard to Iran.

[Oversea Visitor]

3. The vote was suppose to be on Monday.

No news on outcome?

[AlamoDemoc]

4. No news is good news....we await

[Ghost Dog]

6. Reuters News: Major powers fail to agree on Iran

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-09T073725Z_01_L08208850_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13
Tue May 9, 2006 8:37 AM BST17

By Carol Giacomo and Sue Pleming

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Foreign ministers of major powers failed to come up with a joint strategy for dealing with Iran after Tehran sought to influence the negotiations with a stunning last-minute diplomatic manoeuvre, officials said.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said a U.S.-hosted, three-hour meeting on Monday of ministers from Russia, Britain, China and Germany did not reach agreement.

/more...

[Ghost Dog]

5. It would be better if the majority of the 15 members

were to vote against. No veto necessary then.

ed: but there's not even agreement on a proposed resolution yet...

[PATRICK]

2. And the French

playing the US pal role could be leading them down yet another primrose path to embarrass Bolton as they did Powell. If Bolton is trying to actually win UN support for this sneak legitimacy he will be galled to lose to the institution he would be more comfortable lobbing stones against from the outside. And he is another Bush idiot stooge.

The question is, do our "friends" and rivals want us to go ahead with a disastrous war in Iran or do they really want to stop Bush this time? All, all and in big majorities, all of them sane, all the world's people would naturally give this question short shrift but the "leaders" have a lot of other ideas. Anyone of these disgusting pragmatists could win the gratitude of the world by simply doing the right thing and their main job.