|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Iraq: Security Council Unanimously Gives “Final Opportunity” to Iraq By Jim Wurst The resolution, sponsored by the United States and United Kingdom, creates a tougher weapons inspection regime, including unrestricted access to eight “presidential sites.” Last-minute changes last night took into account the concerns of France, Russia and other states that earlier drafts contained “hidden triggers” that the United States could use to justify any military action against Iraq without first getting council approval. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said that at the ”core [of the resolution] is immediate and unimpeded access to every site, including presidential or other sensitive sites, structure, or vehicle [inspectors] choose to inspect and equally immediate and unimpeded access to people they wish to interview. In other words, ‘anyone, anywhere, any time.’” British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said the unanimous support “sends the most powerful signal to Iraq that this is the only choice. ... There is at last a chance that Iraq will finally comply with its obligations and that military action can be averted.” After the meeting, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he would have an advance team in Iraq by Nov. 18. Blix, the head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency — the men who will lead the inspections — were in the council chambers. While the last-minute changes in wording brought all council members on board, governments nevertheless stressed their belief that the “hidden triggers” had been removed. “War can only be a last recourse,” said French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte. “The rules of the game set by the Security Council are clear and demanding. They require full cooperation by the Iraqi leaders. If Iraq wishes to avoid confrontation it must understand that this opportunity is the final one.” He added, “France welcomes the elimination from the resolution of all ambiguity on this point and the elimination of all ‘automaticity.’” Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said the deliberations were “guided by the need to direct a settlement onto the diplomatic and political path not to allow for any military scenarios.” The resolution “does not contain any provision for any automatic use of force. It is important that the sponsors of the resolution today officially confirmed … that that was their understanding. And they gave an assurance that the resolution sought the goal of implementing existing decisions by the Security Council on Iraq through inspections.” Negroponte told the council, “As we have said on numerous occasions to council members, this resolution contains no ‘hidden triggers’ and no automaticity with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a member state, the matter will return to the council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And one way or another … Iraq will be disarmed.” He added, “If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant U.N. resolutions and protect world peace and security.” “Every act of Iraqi noncompliance will be a serious matter, because it would tell us that Iraq has no intention of disarming,” Negroponte said. The resolution retained references to Iraq being in “material breach of its obligations” to disarm and to the threat of “serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.” Critics had seen both phrases as “hidden triggers.” However, the reference to “serious consequences” was moved from the beginning of the resolution to the end. Placing that phrase at the end of the text, meaning it follows the details of the new inspection regime and the procedure for reporting violations to the council, suggests action would have to follow in that order. The earlier placement of the phrase could be interpreted to means consequences could follow at any time since Iraq is already in material breach of U.N. resolutions. Consensus Hinged on Replacing “Or” With “And” The culmination of eight weeks of debate, draft resolutions and counterproposals ended up hinging on a single word: replacing an “or” with an “and.” According to paragraph 4 of the resolution, if Iraq makes “false statements or omissions in the declarations” or fails to cooperate with inspectors, this “shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12.” Yesterday’s version said “paragraph 11 or 12.” Paragraph 11 “directs” Blix and ElBaradei “to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations,” while paragraph 12 says the council will ”convene immediately … in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance.” By replacing the “or” with “and,” France and others were satisfied that the council must meet after a reported violation. In other words, the report alone would not be enough to trigger military action. Last night, Greenstock said, “Paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 become a clearer nexus of paragraphs with the word ‘or.’” Addressing the council, Lavrov said, “In the event of any kind of dispute or disagreement matters, it is the heads of UNMOVIC and the IAEA that will report this to the Security Council and it is the Security Council that will consider the situation. … That is the sequence that is set forth clearly in paragraph 4, 11, and 12 of the resolution.” Syrian Deputy Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said his government has received “reassurances that this resolution would not be used as a pretext to strike Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq.” He added that the resolution “reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in dealing with all phases of the Iraqi file.” The resolution includes a specific timeline for Iraq’s compliance and the inspection regime. Baghdad has until Nov. 15 to accept the resolution and another 23 days to provide “a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects” of weapons of mass destruction programs, and well as declarations of all its other nuclear, chemical and biological programs. UNMOVIC and the IAEA will resume inspections no later than 45 days after the council adopts the resolution and will “update the council 60 days thereafter,” meaning Feb. 21, 2003. Secretary General Kofi Annan commented following the vote. “This is a time of trial — for Iraq, for the United Nations and for the world,” he said. “The goal is to ensure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq in compliance with Security Council resolutions and a better, more secure future for its people,” he said. Annan added, “I urge the Iraqi leadership — for the sake of is own people, and for the sake of world security and world order — to seize this opportunity. … If Iraq’s defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities.” In Washington, U.S. President George W. Bush applauded the unanimous passage of the resolution. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s “cooperation must be prompt and unconditional, or he will face the severest consequences,” Bush told reporters at the White House following the Security Council vote. “The outcome of the current crisis is already determined: the full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq will occur,” Bush said. “The only question for the Iraqi regime is to decide how. The United States prefers that Iraq meet its obligations voluntarily, yet we are prepared for the alternative. In either case, the just demands of the world will be met,” Bush said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
