The U.N. Security Council continues to debate a U.S. draft resolution on Iraq, with France, one of the five permanent members of the council, leading the opposition, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Oct. 15).

“No breakthroughs have taken place to date, but the conversations continue,” said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.  U.S. President George W. Bush has said “he was content to wait for days and weeks, not months.  It still is within that days and weeks time frame .... We’ll see if it goes beyond that,” Fleischer said (Associated Press/USA Today, Oct. 16).

So far, France has the support of about seven other U.N. Security Council members, including permanent members Russia and China, to block the U.S. resolution, according to the Los Angeles Times.  The United States only has the support of six U.N. Security Council members, and possibly a seventh, according to U.N. diplomatic calculations.

In order for a resolution to pass, it must receive nine votes with no opposition from any of the five permanent members.  A 15-0 vote on the resolution, however, is seen as being crucial to prevent the divisive effect of a 1999 U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq.  The debate over that resolution, which passed 11-0 with France, Russia, China and Malaysia abstaining, was later used by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to obtain a three-year reprieve from inspections, U.S. officials said.

The Bush administration is under increasing pressure to compromise on four main issues, including the threat of immediate military action if Iraq fails to comply with inspections, according to U.S. and U.N. officials.  France has proposed a two-stage approach — one resolution outlining a new inspections regime and a second, if inspections fail, on possible consequences.

“It’s not just simply a problem of a second resolution, it’s about coming back to the Security Council,” Ginette de Matha, spokeswoman for the French mission to the United Nations, said yesterday.  “The Security Council must weigh the credibility of any failure (to comply) and decide what to do about it.  It could decide to use force.  It could choose some other action, like issuing a warning, but the important thing is that it is the council of 15 that decides.”

The other three issues on which the United States has been called on to compromise include armed escorts for inspectors, the interview of Iraqi scientists outside the country and the right of U.N. Security Council permanent members to send representatives along with inspectors, according to the Times.

These proposals have always been seen as part of the “negotiating fat” of diplomacy, U.S. and U.N. officials said.

The United States, however, has not indicated it will compromise on calling for “serious consequences” if Iraq fails to comply with inspections, language France also opposes (see GSN, Oct. 10).

“For us, ‘serious consequences’ is the same as ‘material breach.’  ‘Serious consequences’ can be interpreted as possible authorization for the use of force without returning to the Security Council.  We are against this,” De Matha said.  “We believe our position — to have the Security Council meet (again) to decide the consequences of any violation — is the correct position, both in principle and in law” (Los Angeles Times, Oct. 16).

White House Officials Discuss U.N. Strategy

Senior Bush administration officials met yesterday in Washington with John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to discuss strategy on accelerating the passage of the U.S. draft resolution, according to U.S. officials.

The meeting, involving Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials, was meant to “take stock” of the U.S. policy on Iraq as the administration decides whether to accept compromises on the U.S. resolution or to offer it to the U.N. Security Council as is, officials said.

There is growing frustration that Security Council negotiations have not produced a compromise resolution that would include a credible threat to attack Iraq if it fails to comply with inspections, administration officials said.  Negroponte was called to brief the assembled officials at yesterday’s meeting on how stringent a resolution the U.N. Security Council would accept.

Diplomatic Efforts

Meanwhile, there has been almost nonstop diplomatic communications between the United States, the United Kingdom and France, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to negotiate a compromise between the U.S. and French positions, diplomatic sources said.

One of the major issues preventing a compromise is trust, a diplomat said.  France does not believe U.S. assurances that the United States will not quickly attack Iraq if an authorization for military force is included in the U.N. resolution.  The United States sees France as attempting to delay, or even stop, what should be the logical result of Iraqi noncompliance, the diplomat and others said (Lynch/DeYoung/Washington Post, Oct. 16).

Blix Calls on Iraq to Accept Inspections

U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix urged Iraq yesterday to agree to terms on inspections that were worked out earlier this month during meetings held in Vienna.  Even if Iraq agrees, however, inspectors will not return to Iraq until they receive new instructions from the U.N. Security Council, he said.

Inspectors are still waiting for Iraqi agreement on several logistical issues, including helicopter flights for inspectors, conditions for interviews with Iraqi scientists and permission for aerial surveillance flights, Blix said before a closed meeting of the U.N. Security Council.  While there is “a large area of common understanding” with Iraq on the logistical terms for inspections, it has not agreed to all the arrangements made during the Vienna meetings, he said.

The “simplest way to clear up remaining points” on the terms of inspections would be for Iraq to give its broad approval, Blix said.  Since inspectors are waiting for the U.N. Security Council to approve a resolution on a new inspections regime, they will not arrive in Iraq on Oct. 19 — the date set by Baghdad for advance inspections teams to arrive, he said (Julia Preston, New York Times, Oct. 15).

Blix told U.N. Security Council members that inspectors “did not see any legal obstacles to deployment” but thought it “prudent to await the adoption of a new text.”

Both Russia and China have called for inspectors to return to Iraq ahead of any new U.N. resolution (see GSN, Oct. 8).

“He [Blix] said he’s ready, legally and technically ... and we said that he should go,” said Sergey Lavrov, Russia ambassador to the United Nations (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Nando Times, Oct. 15).

“We believe that the imperative is to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq as soon as possible to have outside inspection and then submit a report to the U.N. Security Council,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue.  “After reviewing such an objective report, then the U.N. Security Council should take some actions” (Associated Press/USA Today).

John Bolton, U.S. assistant secretary of state for arms control and international security, said he doubted that U.N. inspectors would ever have the opportunity to conduct full inspections in Iraq.

“If the inspectors get back in, it’s essentially a certainty that Saddam Hussein will try and obstruct them,” Bolton said.  “I don’t know whether that will be the first day, or the second day or the day after.  His desire to keep his weapons of mass destruction is an inherent part of his strategy for staying in power” (Preston, New York Times).

Israel to Stay Out of War

Israel has agreed to stay out of any U.S.-led military campaign against Iraq, provided Iraq does not attack Israel with chemical or biological weapons, USA Today reported today (see GSN, Oct. 11).

“We will do our best not to be involved,” a senior Israeli official said.  “The dilemma is if there is an unconventional attack without casualties.”  An attack with weapons of mass destruction, or a conventional attack that causes large numbers of casualties, could prompt Israel to respond, the official said.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is expected to revise Israeli contingency planning for a possible Iraq war when he meets with Bush today in Washington, Israeli officials said.  U.S. officials have told Israel that in exchange for not retaliating, the United States will work to prevent Iraqi missile attacks by searching Iraq’s western desert for missile systems, USA Today reported (see GSN, Oct. 15; Barbara Slavin, USA Today, Oct. 16).

Bush is also expected to promise Israel that the United States will help defend it against Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction, according to the Washington Times.  During the 1991 Gulf War, the United States deployed Patriot missile interceptor batteries in Israel after Iraqi Scud missile attacks caused damage, but few casualties, near Tel Aviv (Joseph Curl, Washington Times, Oct. 16).

Bush to Sign Congressional Resolution

Bush invited about 100 members of Congress to the White House today to witness the signing of the congressional resolution granting him the authority to use force against Iraq, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Oct. 11).  Last week, the House of Representatives voted 296-133 and the Senate voted 77-23 to pass the resolution (Jennifer Loven, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 16).

“De-Nazification”

The U.S. policy of “regime change” in Iraq is targeted toward more than just Hussein, Bolton said.  He indicated that the approach likely to be taken in a post-Hussein Iraq would be similar to the de-Nazification process conducted in Germany after World War II.

“It’s not just the one person, obviously, it’s the top people around him,” Bolton said.  “I think one element that would have to be part of any post-Saddam process would be, in effect, the analog to de-Nazification, to take out the people at the top of the Iraqi regime who are so fundamentally part of Saddam’s entourage that their remaining in power would have the problem persist” (Preston, New York Times).

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