U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraqi officials agreed tentatively on inspection terms today in Vienna following two days of talks at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna (see GSN, Sept. 30).  Iraqi officials said the United Nations would send an advance team of inspectors to Iraq in two weeks.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Iraq has accepted “all the rights of inspections that are laid down” in previous U.N. resolutions.  Iraq also handed Blix four disks containing reports on Iraqi dual-use facilities, thus filling a backlog of reports not made since 1998.

Under today’s agreement, limits to the rights of U.N. inspectors to visit presidential sites in Iraq will remain in effect, as they are provided for in existing U.N. Security Council resolutions (William Kole, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 1).

During previous rounds of inspections, Iraq created logistical problems, experts said.  Inspectors’ hotel rooms were broken into, they were provided poor transportation to sites and, on a few occasions, even had food dumped on them during meals, experts said.

“Even if you’re only talking about logistics, the Iraqis can put up hurdles that make the inspectors’ lives very difficult,” said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control (Mark Landler, New York Times, Oct. 1).

Draft U.N. Resolution

Meanwhile, more details emerged today on a U.S. draft resolution to the U.N. Security Council calling for a new inspection regime in Iraq.

Included is a proposal that would give U.N. inspectors the authority to establish “no-fly” and “no-drive” zones around suspected sites with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, according to the Washington Post.  These zones could be “enforced by U.N. security forces or U.N. member states.”

The Bush administration has not yet decided whether to keep the proposal in the resolution when it is formally submitted to the U.N. Security Council, which could happen as early as Thursday, U.S. and U.N. diplomats said.  The proposal is “still very much in play,” a U.S. official said.

The resolution also says Iraq is in “material breach” of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement and would require Iraq to allow weapons scientists and other officials to leave the country to be interviewed by weapons inspectors, the Post reported.  Under the resolution, Iraq would be required to provide a list of personnel connected to suspected WMD programs.

The U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the IAEA “may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside Iraq or facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that such interviews shall occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government,” the resolution says.

The resolution would force Iraq to allow the United Nations to station security forces in key areas to safeguard inspectors, the Post reported.  It would also give U.N. Security Council members the right to recommend sites for inspection and to request permission to have their representatives be included in inspections (Washington Post, Oct. 1).

Consulting the Security Council

Although there is not yet agreement among the five permanent Security Council members, U.S. and British officials yesterday briefed the 10 elected members of the council for the second time without showing them the actual wording of the draft resolution. 

A diplomat at the meeting said the U.S. Deputy Ambassador James Cunningham told the 10 that this is the “last chance for peace” and that British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said, “Iraq will not move unless the pressure is real.” Cunningham described the resolution as “the legal basis for disarmament,” according to the diplomat, “Only through genuine disarmament can war be less likely.”  The diplomat described the draft as “a serious resolution, it’s tough, but it’s not unreasonable.”

Since details of the draft started circulating last week, the 10 states have only made general comments on their governments’ position until the actual wording was in hand.  The 10 had their first briefing on Friday.  Greenstock said Washington and London had hoped to have the draft then, the diplomat said, but they wanted “a unified position” among the permanent five members of the council first.

The five — the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and China — are scheduled to hold another meeting today.

A normal procedure within the council, especially on contentious issues, is for the permanent five members to work out a draft resolution among themselves and after they reach agreement, present it to the 10 elected council members. But it is clear from their public statements that the divisions among the five have not yet been bridged.  This raises the possibility that a vote in the council on a final version of the draft may be weeks away.

Hans Blix, the U.N.’s chief weapons inspector, is working on a timeline that would place inspectors in Iraq by Oct. 15.  Blix is operating under the mandate of Resolution 1284, one of the resolutions the U.S.-British draft would override.  U.S. officials have said they do not want inspectors in Iraq until a new mandate is in place. (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Oct. 1)

United Kingdom Reaches Compromise

In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed today to a resolution in the British Parliament calling for a U.N. mandate before launching a military strike on Iraq, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Sept. 27).  The resolution is expected to help ease concerns within Blair’s Labor Party over his support for the United States.

The resolution, which passed by a show of hands during the Labor Party’s annual conference, says that British military forces should participate in an attack on Iraq only “after the exhaustion of all other political and diplomatic means.”  The conference later voted 60 percent to 40 percent against a motion to condemn military action, according to the Post.  The two votes indicated the high amount of concern within the Labor Party over Blair’s support for military action against Iraq, party officials said.

“The party is reasonably anxious about military action and this is good,” said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.  “It’s an anxiety which I share and the prime minister shares.”

The votes also demonstrated to Blair that he might risk his political future if he were to commit British troops to an attack on Iraq without U.N. backing, some conference participants said.

“He’s got to be worried about the party, but he should be even more concerned about the country as a whole,” said Tony Benn, a former member of the Parliament.

“President [George W.] Bush is determined to go to war,” said Alice Mahon, a current member of the Parliament.  “I believe it’s a disgrace our government is the only one in the Western world willing to back him” (Washington Post, Oct. 1).

Senators Propose Alternative Resolutions

In the United States today, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and ranking Republican committee member Richard Lugar (Ind.) released an alternative to a White House resolution authorizing U.S. military action against Iraq (see related GSN story, today).

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she plans to introduce an amendment that would authorize U.S. military action only if Iraq were to fail to comply with U.N. resolutions within 30 days.  The amendment would also require Bush to certify that all diplomatic measures had failed, according to Feinstein.

The various changes and alternatives to the White House draft resolution are unlikely to be supported if brought up for consideration on their own, according to the Times.  Senate leaders have estimated that between 75 and 80 senators would probably vote for the White House draft resolution, and the House of Representatives is also likely to support it, the Times reported.  Any changes accepted by the Bush administration, however, could help reduce the number of votes and amendments against the White House draft resolution during congressional debate, according to the Times.  Congressional aides have said they want this to happen to demonstrate a united front against Iraq.

“Our goal from the outset has been to construct a resolution that helps the president attract strong bipartisan support,” Biden and Lugar said in a joint statement (David Firestone, New York Times, Oct. 1).

[EDITOR’S NOTE:  Richard Lugar is a Nuclear Threat Initiative board member.  NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Iraqi Sanctions Revisions

IAEA Iraq Action Team

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top