Iraq:  Baghdad Debates U.N. Resolution

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has convened an emergency parliamentary session to consider the recently approved resolution in the United Nations to inspect Iraqi sites with suspected weapons of mass destruction, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, Nov. 8).

“The National Assembly is expected to express support for Iraq’s leadership and mandate it to take the decision it deems to be in the interest of the Iraqi people,” a source close to the Iraqi Parliament said.

The Parliament is expected to criticize the new U.N. resolution, echoing official comments that it is “bad and unfair,” as a source said to the official Iraqi News Agency Saturday.  The source also said that Baghdad is “quietly studying” the resolution, indicating that Hussein might agree to it by the Nov. 15 deadline (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Nov. 11).

Arab League Urges Iraqi Support

Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo yesterday said that Iraq would probably comply with the new U.N. resolution.  After a day-long meeting, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said “no decision has been taken” on Iraq’s acceptance of the new resolution.  Arab League sources, however, said Sabri had told them that Iraq would probably comply.

In a statement, the participants of yesterday’s meeting urged Hussein to accept the new resolution as part of an effort “to solve all standing issues peacefully in preparation for the lifting of sanctions and the end of the (U.N.) embargo as well as the suffering of the Iraqi people.”

Also in the statement, the Arab League foreign ministers asserted their “absolute rejection” of military action against Iraq.  Several Arab states see the U.N. resolution as a means of avoiding war in the region, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“The U.N. resolution provides the opportunity for a peaceful settlement,” Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said.  “The resolution has pushed the phantom of war into the distance for several weeks or several months.  Our goal is to spare Iraq and the region from a military strike,” he said.

At yesterday’s meeting, Arab leaders indicated to Sabri that they would not support Iraq if it were ignore the resolution, the Times reported.

“We’re telling Iraq the Americans are really serious and this time we’re not with you,” said a senior adviser to one Arab delegation.  “If you reject the resolution, you’re on your own.  You’ve got no choice,” the source said (David Lamb, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 11).

Syria Votes Yes

Meanwhile, Syria voted to support the new U.N. resolution on Iraq because of assurances from permanent Security Council members that it would not be used as a pretext for military action, Syrian Deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad has said.  The resolution also reaffirmed the council’s primary role in dealing with Iraq and preserved Iraq’s sovereignty, he said.

Some experts said that Syria gave its support to the resolution because it feared being on the losing side of the vote.  Syria voted yes because once France, Russia and China — which had each opposed the U.S. draft — gave their support, Syria did not want to be seen as “the odd one out,” said Walid Kazziha, a professor of politics at the American University in Cairo.

“For Syria, the priority is the Israeli-Palestinian issue,” Kazziha said.  “Syria does not want to be in the U.S.’s bad books on this point” (Edith Lederer Associated Press/Jordan Times, Nov. 10).

U.S. View

U.S. officials have begun to urge Hussein to comply with the U.N. resolution, raising the threat of military action if he does not, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“If (Hussein) doesn’t comply this time, we are going to ask the U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on CNN’s Late Edition.  “If the U.N. isn’t willing to do that, the United States, with like-minded nations, will go and disarm him forcefully.”

Under the new resolution, Hussein has until Dec. 8 to declare or surrender all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs and U.N. inspectors have a Feb. 21 deadline to report to the Security Council.  Powell indicated, however, that the United States might not wait until the February report to determine whether Iraq is complying.

“We’re not going to wait until February to see if Iraq is cooperating or not,” Powell said.  U.S. and U.N. officials “will be able to make a judgment as to cooperation very quickly, not sometime in February,” he added.

Hussein “knows if he violates this resolution, military force is coming in to take him and his regime out,” Powell said (Lamb, Los Angeles Times).

U.S. War Plans

Senior U.S. military officials have said that the Bush administration has decided on an invasion plan for Iraq based on capturing most of the country quickly and isolating Baghdad, but the administration is also envisioning that Hussein will be overthrown before U.S. troops attack the city, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Oct. 29).

The Defense Department is preparing for possible protracted urban combat in and around Baghdad, according to the Post.  White House military planners believe there could be bloody skirmishes in Baghdad and in Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit even if he is overthrown, the senior military officials said.

The U.S. war plan, which is still in development, tries to consider regional sensitivities by seeking to inflict the minimum amount of damage needed to achieve U.S. goals, the Post reported.  To do so, the plan involves a relatively small U.S. force quickly launching focused attacks.  Taking into account the possibility that Iraqi resistance will be higher than expected, however, it includes deployment of enough troops — 150,000 U.S. and allied soldiers — to combat the Iraqi Republican Guard.

“The point is that if things don’t go as we hope, there will be enough forces on hand to deal with it,” said a Pentagon official who was briefed on the plan late last month.

The U.S. plan is also designed to cause Iraqis to revolt against Hussein, according to the Post.  The plans seeks to “create the conditions” needed for the Iraqis to do so, a White House official said.

“I think ultimately this is more of a revolution that’s going to happen, rather than something brought about by U.S. military power,” the official said.

To ferment a revolt, a U.S. attack on Iraq would begin with a campaign of simultaneous air strikes, ground attacks and psychological operations meant to destroy the Iraqi security police and other pro-Hussein institutions, the Post reported.

“You have to shake the regime to its core,” one defense expert said.  “You’ve got to pursue the pillars of the regime across the board,” the expert added.

If Hussein were quickly overthrown, then U.S. troops would not have to assault Baghdad, according to military planners.  “The feeling is, they’ll be successful in the first phase, and then the next phase won’t be necessary, because the regime will fall and a new regime will take over,” one planner said.

The current U.S. plan for an attack on Iraq better resembles planning for the 1989 invasion of Panama than the 1991 Gulf War, some experts have said.

“This is looking more and more like a Panama-style takedown, a special operation writ large, but with significant follow-on forces … to pacify any bypassed pockets, prevent too many reprisal killings of the Baathists and reduce any holdouts,” said Tom Donnelly, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who is co-author of a history of the invasion of Panama (Thomas Ricks, Washington Post, Nov. 10).

Iraqi Reconstruction

The Bush administration has also begun planning for a post-Hussein Iraq, envisioning deployment of thousands of U.S. troops within the country and the creation of an international civil authority, possibly headed by a U.S. official, that would control Iraq for at least two years, the Wall Street Journal reported today.

The U.S. military is expected to directly control Iraq for up to four months following the overthrow of Hussein, according to officials.  During that time, the U.S. military would work to deliver humanitarian supplies, secure Iraqi WMD stockpiles and maintain law and order.  Several thousand Iraqi exiles would be trained to serve as police to assist U.S. troops, officials said.

After a few months, military control would be replaced by a civil administration supported by U.S. troops, and possibly by an international force, according to the Journal.  According to the White House plan, Iraqi officials who were not closely attached to the Hussein regime could take an active public role as advisers, the Journal reported.

A full Iraqi-controlled government would not take control for at least two years or longer after the overthrow of Hussein, according to the Journal.  Before an Iraqi government could be created, a new constitution would have to be drafted and elections held, officials said.  Plans are still being made for possibly prosecuting regime members for war crimes, U.S. officials said (see GSN, Oct. 30).

One outstanding question is the role of Iraqi exile groups such as the Iraqi National Congress in a post-Hussein Iraq, the Journal reported.  While INC leader Ahmed Chalabi has supporters among Pentagon officials and aides to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, he is mistrusted by the U.S. State Department.

Some Pentagon officials have said the United States should support an INC-led provisional government.  If the United States were to wait until Iraqi elections to choose new leaders to support, it may have little control over who emerges, they said.

“It would be a very good idea to bring in Iraqis as quickly as possible” once Hussein is removed from power, a Pentagon official said.  “And of all the opposition groups, the only one really interested in establishing a democracy is the INC” (Cloud/Robbins, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 11).

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

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Senior Diplomats Meet, Discuss Security Issues

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov met in Moscow yesterday to discuss several joint security issues (see GSN, Sept. 25).

The meeting precedes a proposed U.S.-Russian summit between U.S. and Russian Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, which might occur sometime between Nov. 20 and Nov. 30, according to Interfax.  Bolton is also expected to meet with Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev before leaving “in a day or two,” said a U.S. Embassy spokesman (Agence France-Presse, Nov. 10).

Both Russia and the United States “have good prospects” to ratify to the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, Mamedov said after meeting with Bolton (see GSN, Oct. 11).

“The Russian Foreign Ministry expects [the] Russian Parliament to ratify the treaty in December,” Mamedov said.  “We would like the U.S. Congress not to lag behind,” he added (Bayev/Pyanykh, ITAR-Tass, Nov. 10).

Bolton and Mamedov noted during yesterday’s meeting that the recent approval of a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq should assist U.S.-Russian efforts to strengthen and improve international nonproliferation regimes for weapons of mass destruction, according to Interfax (see related GSN story, today; Interfax/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Nov. 10).

The two officials also discussed missile defense programs, which are a potential topic of discussion for the proposed Bush-Putin summit, Mamedov said.

A joint U.S.-Russian working group designed to achieve “transparency and cooperation” in missile defense was recently held in Geneva, Mamedov said.  “We analyzed the work of the group, and will brief our superiors and they will brief our presidents,” he said (Xinhua news agency, Nov. 10).

For further information, see:

U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)

Bush Announces Moscow Treaty

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Moscow Treaty

Back to top

Indian Response:  New Unit to Respond to Nuclear, Biological Incidents

India is training 400 military personnel for a rapid reaction force that would respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction, Xinhua reported yesterday (see GSN, July 11).

Senior defense officials said the new units would be the “first responder in the event of a nuclear or biological attack,” according to the Press Trust of India.

Specialists at an eight-week program in the United States have already trained 13 officers who plan to serve in the unit, and seven more officers plan to complete the U.S. training before returning to prepare more officers in India.

“The unit would be highly specialized force equipped with sophisticated equipment which is being procured by the CISF [Central Industrial Security Force] from abroad,” Indian defense officials said.

Four companies taken from the security force make up the group, which should eventually grow by six more companies.  Units are to be stationed in Ghaziabad to cover northern areas, Ranchi for eastern areas, Kota for the west and Chennai for the south (Xinhua, Nov. 10).

Back to top

Iraq:  Security Council Unanimously Gives “Final Opportunity” to Iraq

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — The Security Council this morning unanimously adopted a new resolution giving Iraq “a final opportunity” to disarm or face “serious consequences.”

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

Iraq:  France Closer to Supporting Revised U.S. Draft U.N. Resolution

After weeks of opposing the United States in U.N. Security Council discussions over a new resolution on Iraq, France yesterday offered limited support for the latest U.S. draft (see GSN, Nov. 6).  Other U.N. diplomats and officials, however, varied in their levels of support (Colum Lynch, Washington Post, Nov. 7).

The council resumed its discussion of the U.S. draft this morning as U.S. and British officials pressed for vote tomorrow (Jim Wurst, UNWire, Nov. 7).

“Very important progress has been achieved” in addressing France’s demand that the Security Council have a role in determining the use of force against Iraq in the event it fails to comply with inspections, French U.N. Ambassador Jean David Levitte said, praising the revised U.S. draft.  “We want to give Iraq a last chance to disarm through U.N. inspections,” he said.

France did not endorse the draft completely, however, as French President Jacques Chirac believes “certain ambiguities need to be cleared up” in the U.S. draft regarding the use of force against Iraq, Chirac’s spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said.  France still plans to pressure the United States into easing some of the toughest inspections measures outlined in the resolution, such as a provision giving inspectors the right to remove Iraqi scientists from the country to conduct interviews, Levitte said.

Diplomats from Russia and China, both permanent Security Council members with veto power, as well as Syrian diplomats expressed concerns the U.S. draft still has a “hidden trigger” for war.

“We don’t believe we can agree with automaticity, and we don’t believe that we can agree with unimplementable demands,” Russian U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said, referring to language Russia fears could give the United States the authority to attack Iraq if it decides Baghdad is not complying with the resolution.  “It’s a work in progress,” he said.

U.S. and British diplomats attempted to address concerns the resolution would be used to provide automatic approval for an attack on Iraq.

“[U.S.] President [George W.] Bush has said on repeated occasions that as far as he is concerned, war would be a last resort, that he wants to give the United Nations and the Security Council a chance,” John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said.  “We believe the resolution that we ... laid down this morning is the best way to achieve the disarmament of Iraq by peaceful means.”

The Security Council is making “progress,” U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said, urging council members to support the revised U.S. draft.  “I have always maintained that it is important that the council speaks with one voice,” Annan said.

Problems Remain

U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said, however, there were still several problems with the revised U.S. draft.  He said he had concerns about a provision giving him and inspectors the authority to interview Iraqi scientists outside the country.  A seven-day deadline for Iraq to accept the terms of the resolution was also unnecessary and it could be impossible for Baghdad to meet a 30-day deadline to declare all the components of its civilian chemical and biological industries, Blix said.

“To declare a program of a whole petrochemical industry might be difficult to put together in 30 days,” he said.  “We’ll see whether there will be some further modifications (in the U.S. draft) made here and there,” Blix added (Lynch, Washington Post).

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

Back to top

German Response:  Berlin Considers Keeping Anti-WMD Unit in Kuwait

Germany is considering deploying an anti-WMD unit in Kuwait for an additional year, government sources said Tuesday (see GSN, Feb. 19).  The unit of 52 troops and six armored vehicles equipped to detect weapons of mass destruction were sent to Kuwait last year to aid the U.S. war on terrorism.

The lower house of the German Parliament is expected to debate the extension today and to vote on it next week, according to Agence France-Presse. The unit’s deployment was originally set to end Nov. 15 (see GSN, Dec. 3, 2001; Agence France-Presse, Nov. 5 in FBIS-WEU, Nov. 5).

Back to top

Iraq I:  Security Council Debates Latest U.S. Draft on Weapons Inspections

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council began closed-door consultations this morning on a new version of a draft resolution by the United States and United Kingdom giving Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” or face “serious consequences.”

A U.S. official said Washington “would like a vote on Friday.”

The draft leaves in place the tougher weapons inspection regime, including unrestricted access to eight “presidential sites,” but changes wording to address the concerns of France, Russia and other states that the draft contains “hidden triggers” that the United States could use to justify any military action against Iraq without first getting council approval.

France, Russia and China — the other three veto-holding members of the council — have insisted that there be two resolutions:  the first on inspections and the second on actions to be taken if Iraq does not comply.  The U.S.-British draft would still be a single resolution but, according to a British official, ”it is committing to a second stage.”  Washington and London are signaling that “we will not just grab this resolution and run.  We stay involved in the council.  But if the council cannot produce a decision in the future, this doesn’t bind people into a second resolution, but it does bind them into a second stage,” said the official.

According to the draft, 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.”  The council will then “convene immediately … to consider the situation and the need for full compliance.” 

The new text keeps the references to Iraq being in “material breach of its obligations” to disarm and the threat of  “serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.”  Critics see both phrases as “hidden triggers.”  However, the reference to “serious consequences” has been moved from the beginning of the resolution to the end.  Placing that phrase at the end of the text, meaning it follows the outline 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 mean consequences could follow at any time since Iraq is already in material breach.

The new text “has made quite clear that you have a linear process and there are no hidden pathways that could circumvent coming back to the council,” the British diplomat said.

French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte would not comment on his way into the council meeting today.  Ambassadors from the 10 elected members of the council also would not comment.  Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser said his government is “going to send instructions to us later in the day.”

Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission head Hans Blix, who will oversee the weapons inspections along with the International Atomic Energy Agency, are attending the meeting.

The draft maintains the timeline from the previous draft resolution for Iraq’s compliance.  Baghdad has seven days to accept the resolution and another 23 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 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.”

The revision also includes other elements favored by France and Russia, but missing from earlier versions of the U.S.-British text — commitment to Iraq’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity” and acknowledgement of the efforts of Annan and the Arab League.

Consultations on the draft ended after noon today, and will resume tomorrow.

Back to top

Iraq II:  United Nations Overrules U.S. Objections to Chemical Sale

The United Nations has overruled U.S. objections to an Iraqi purchase of colloidal silicon dioxide, a compound which can enhance chemical and biological agents, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 17).

Iraq ordered the substance in August 2001, but the United States blocked the shipment over concerns of its possible use, according to the Times.  Nevertheless, the chemical was delivered last month after the United Nations approved the sale, said Hasmik Egin a spokeswoman for the U.N. oil-for-food program.

Colloidal silicon dioxide is not included on the program’s Goods Review List, Egin said (see GSN, May 21).  “If it is not a GRL item, it is up for approval,” she said.

The United States had placed the initial contract for the chemical on hold, Egin said.  Once additional information was provided to the U.N. sanctions committee, however, the hold was lifted, she said.

While colloidal silicon dioxide has commercial applications, it can also be used to produce “dusty” chemical and biological agents capable of penetrating protective clothing, U.S. intelligence officials said.

“The U.N. is helping the Iraqis to enhance their biological and chemical weapons,” said a U.S. intelligence official familiar with reports of the chemical sale.

U.S. intelligence agencies have estimated that dusty nerve agents can cause a fatality rate as high as 38 percent in troops wearing full protective gear, Eric Croddy, a chemical and biological weapons specialist at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, said in a recent article (see GSN, Oct. 29).

The U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission is reviewing a second colloidal silicon dioxide contract that had been rejected as “noncompliant” with the Goods Review List, Egin said (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, Nov. 6).

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

U.N. Resolution 706 (Oil-For-Food Program)

Back to top

Iraq:  United States to Introduce Latest Draft of U.N. Resolution

The United States plans to introduce a final revised draft of a U.N. resolution on Iraq by tomorrow and expects the U.N. Security Council to vote on it by the end of the week, Bush administration officials said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 1).  This latest U.S. draft would be the third circulated among all 15 members of the council since early last month, according to the Washington Post.

The final draft of the resolution “has gone a long way to taking into account” the views of other countries, said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.  It still satisfies “core” U.S. goals, he added, including outlining past Iraqi noncompliance with U.N. inspections, establishing a new inspections regime and promising serious consequences for future Iraqi noncompliance (Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, Nov. 5).

The revised U.S. draft does not contain an explicit threat of military action in the event of Iraqi failure to comply with the new inspections, said Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda.  France and Russia, two permanent Security Council members, have vigorously opposed such a threat.

“First, there is no mention of the use of force, not even the euphemism of ‘by all means necessary,’ which is the euphemism that is customarily used,” Castaneda said (Deans/Ferriss, Chicago Tribune, Nov. 5).

The final draft would allow the United Nations to end sanctions against Iraq as an incentive, or “carrot,” for compliance with inspections, Castaneda said.  “It also says that there would be serious consequences if it [Iraq] does not comply,” he added.

Also in the final draft, references to Iraq’s potential “material breach” of U.N. resolutions make clear that Iraq would have one last chance to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction, and that the United States would not have automatic approval to attack, diplomats said.

Negotiators have omitted two previous proposals from the latest draft — one had called for armed guards to support inspectors, and the other would have allowed any of the five permanent Security Council members to include representatives on inspections teams, Castaneda said.  U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is believed to have opposed both proposals, according to the Associated Press (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Nov. 5).

Security Council Vote

Castaneda yesterday indicated that the Security Council might agree on the new resolution.  “I’m optimistic that a deal can be reached soon,” he said.

Over the past several days, Castaneda has had discussions with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.  Yesterday, U.S. President George W. Bush discussed the issue with Mexican President Vicente Fox, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Oct. 25).

“It was important that the two presidents compare notes on all of these conversations to have a sense where each one stood,” Castaneda said.  “We’re very clear on what President Bush’s position is.”

The White House has increased pressure on small Security Council members to support the resolution, according to the Post.  Mauritius, which has signed a U.S. foreign aid agreement requiring that it not “undermine” U.S. national security interests, withdrew its U.N. ambassador last week because he “gave the impression that Mauritius was against the U.S.-drafted resolution on Iraq,” Mauritian Foreign Minister Anil Gayan said.

U.N. diplomats have estimated that nine council members, not including France or Russia, plan to vote in favor of the U.S. resolution, the Post reported (DeYoung, Washington Post).

Castaneda, however, predicted that the revised U.S. resolution would be approved by a Security Council vote of 14-0, with Syria abstaining, according to AP.

Russia now sees “no substantive differences” on the issue of weapons inspections, said Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s U.N. ambassador.  Russian officials are concerned, however, that some language might still be used as an automatic approval of military action against Iraq (Lederer, Associated Press).

Saudi Bases

Meanwhile, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said yesterday that Saudi Arabia has not decided whether to allow the United States to use its bases and airspace in the event of a war with Iraq (see GSN, Nov. 4).

The minister said there had been a misunderstanding about his “no” reply when asked by CNN if Saudi bases could be used in a military campaign against Iraq, according to the New York Times.  If Iraq “refuses the implementation” of the U.N. resolution “concerning inspections,” then Saudi Arabia would be obliged to “cooperate” with the United Nations, he said.

“But that does not mean we have to join the fighting or indeed to leave our bases for use,” the minister said.  “This is a sovereign right of Saudi Arabia to decide when the time comes” (Patrick Tyler, New York Times, Nov. 5).

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

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP