So Saddam's son publicly suggested that Iraq accept the UN resolution, as long as there were some Arabs on the inspection team. But then Iraq's parliament unanimously rejected the resolution, then going on to say that wise Saddam would be given the final say.
I'm sure that all of these people are working from a script. But what's the point? Is Iraq really going to face down the US and Britain (even France is now talking about the use of military force)? Or is this all a prelude to Saddam's coming back with his son's proposal on Friday?
The point is to send a political message. Two options come from this.
1-The vote goes against the UN to allow "cover room" that Iraq is not a dictatorship but with a beloved leader.
2-Saddam can overcome the vote and simply then use the negative vote to say to the UN, "My people cannot accept this, and we must negotiate more, now about those palaces.....
Rice (the Bush administration) in anticipation of this has stated that the UN directive is an article seven in which Iraq has no choice but to comply. There will be no further negotiation. In the end it is just an additional ploy.
"1-The vote goes against the UN to allow "cover room" that Iraq is not a dictatorship but with a beloved leader."
Can Iraq really misunderstand democracy that badly? A parliament that returns a unanimous decision to defy the entire world is clear evidence that Iraq IS a dictatorship. If I were Saddam, and trying to give the impression of democracy to the rest of the world, I'd pull a dozen or so guys aside and say, "All right, you guys are all voting FOR the resolution. Otherwise, it's off with your heads."
Possibly they are voting against it so that Saddam can allow the inspectors in. The hope being that this would make him seem like a benevolent dictator who avoided war, against his countries wishes.
The other option is that we go to war. In either scenario, Saddam creates the appearance of making a decision that is for the "good" of his country.