The U.N. Security Council yesterday unanimously extended existing sanctions against Iraq for another six months, but in a change from previous extensions, the council’s resolution included a draft list of items that Iraq could not import without council approval.  Formal implementation of the council's new role in reviewing Iraqi imports is expected to begin when the just-extended sanctions expire in May 2002 (U.N. release, Nov. 29).

Yesterday's resolution followed a U.S.-Russian agreement earlier this week resolving a conflict between Russian efforts to move beyond the current sanctions regime and U.S. policy of denying Iraq technology that could be used for military purposes (see GSN, Nov. 28).

The United States agreed to review a 1999 U.N. resolution that outlined the measures required before the United Nations would lift the sanctions, and Russia agreed to a list of items subject to U.N. approval.  Before the agreement, Russia had opposed U.S. and British plans to revise the sanctions (Reuters, Nov. 28).

The draft goods list included several general categories of items subject to U.N. review:  advanced materials, materials processing, electronics, computers, telecommunications and information security, sensors and lasers, navigation and avionics, marine equipment and propulsion.  Some specific items on the list included image intensifier night vision equipment, non-civil certified aircraft, specialized vibration test equipment, unmanned aerial vehicles and certain biological equipment (U.N. release, Nov. 29).  Iraq could import items that the final list would not include without restriction (U.S. State Department release, Nov. 29).

"I think it's a very important step forward in terms of the unity of the Security Council vis-a-vis Iraq, and I think it should send a signal to Iraq that we are determined to press for this program," said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte.

"I'm glad we were able to get consensus without a situation where people would be saying somebody won, somebody lost.  It makes it possible for the international community to continue supporting the Iraqi people and to improve the humanitarian situation," said Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Sergey Lavrov, adding, "the only way to radically solve the Iraq problem is to ensure that international disarmament monitoring resumes in Iraq in conjunction with the suspension and lifting of sanctions" (Associated Press/MSNBC, Nov. 30).

Russia and the United States also called on Iraq yesterday to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to conduct investigations into Iraqi weapons programs (Deutsche Presse-Agentur/European Internet Network, Nov. 30).

Tunisia had said it might oppose the resolution without a provision allowing civilian aircraft stranded in Tunisia and Jordan since the 1991 Gulf War to return to Iraq, but Tunisia dropped its demand, allowing the resolution to pass the council unanimously, according to Western diplomats (Associated Press/Washington Post, Nov. 30).

Does Iraq Have WMD?

Meanwhile, debate has continued about the threat Iraq could pose with weapons of mass destruction.  Iraq has been working on building weapons of mass destruction since the late 1970s, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Iraq said in 1995 it had produced about 6,500 gallons of biological agents, including anthrax.  A CIA report in September of this year said Iraq was developing an unmanned airplane that could deliver toxic weapons (Abraham McLaughlin, Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 30).

The International Atomic Energy Agency said at the end of 1998 that it had found no indications that Iraq had successfully produced nuclear weapons or had the capability to produce significant amounts of weapons-grade nuclear material.  However, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in October that the agency could no longer provide any assurance that Iraq had complied with its obligations since the agency had been unable to conduct inspections in the last three years.

Richard Butler, who previously ran the U.N. inspection program in Iraq after the Gulf War, criticized the United States and United Nations for not taking stronger action against Iraq.  “It’s well established that [Iraq has] weapons of mass destruction.  The question is how much longer the U.N. Security Council will allow this to go on,” he said (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press, Nov. 30).

Iraq has denied that it produced weapons of mass destruction and denied any involvement with al-Qaeda.  Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations Muhammad al-Douri said Iraq had considered al-Qaeda a pro-U.S. organization before the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States and therefore was not on good terms with the organization.  “We are certainly not on good terms with them and certainly we will not have relations in any way with them for the future,” he said (BBC News, Nov. 29).

Will the United States Attack Iraq?

Meanwhile, debate has continued in the United States and among its allies about the wisdom of focusing on Iraq as the next stage of the war on terrorism.  The Bush administration appears to be preparing to widen the war beyond Afghanistan, according to the Economist.  “Afghanistan is just the beginning of the war against terror.  There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them.  We will not be secure as a nation until all of these threats are defeated,” U.S. President George W. Bush said last week.  Earlier this week he demanded that Iraq allow weapons inspectors to return or face unspecified consequences (see GSN, Nov. 27). 

Some U.S. analysts and government officials have pushed for expanding the war to Iraq, the Economist said, but it remained unclear if the United States would militarily intervene in Iraq as part of the next phase in the war.  Saddam Hussein is one of a number of leaders supporting terrorism, but not the only one, said Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. deputy secretary of defense.  The next phase could involve Iraq but could also focus on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Economist said (Economist, Nov. 30).

The Bush administration was divided into two camps, according to Lawrence Kaplan in the New Republic.  One group, including the U.S. State Department, wanted to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but to limit any campaign to destroying Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.  Kaplan advocated the option supported by the other group—which includes the Pentagon leadership—to destroy Hussein all together (Lawrence Kaplan, New Republic, Dec. 10).

U.S. allies, however, have called for caution and generally opposed refocusing military action to Iraq (see GSN, Nov. 28).  “All European nations would view a widening of the conflict with great skepticism, and that is putting it diplomatically,” said German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer Wednesday.  “There is no other nation [besides Afghanistan] whose leaders have been active accomplices of terrorist actions,” said French Defense Minister Alain Richard (Peter Ford, Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 30).

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top