United Nations:  General Assembly Focuses on Iraq and Terrorism

By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

UNITED NATIONS — A weekend of speeches before the U.N. General Assembly revealed support for the U.S. position on Iraq, but also concerns that attention needs to be paid to the issues raised by the United States beyond the context of Iraq, including the Middle East, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Sept. 13).

By the end of the day Sunday, the majority of Security Council members had spoken.  On Iraq, views ranged from strong support for the U.S. position, to stressing concerns U.S. President George W. Bush played down in his speech Thursday, to avoiding the question altogether (see GSN, Sept. 12).

The United Kingdom voiced the strongest support for the United States, echoing the arguments Bush made Thursday.  “Saddam Hussein has persistently mocked the authority of this United Nations.  No country has deceived every other country in the world as systematically and cynically as Iraq,” said Foreign Minister Jack Straw.  “So those of us who believe in an active international community cannot stand by and do nothing while Iraq continues to defy the U.N.  All of us who believe in the United Nations have to make our minds up now about how to deal with Iraq.  For the authority of the United Nations itself is at stake.”

“We have to be resolute in the face of Iraq’s defiance and secure the will of the United Nations,” Straw continued.  “We must require Iraq to re-admit inspectors with unfettered access.  We have not just an interest, but a responsibility to ensure that Iraq complies fully with international law.  We have to be clear to Iraq and to ourselves about the consequences, which will flow from a failure by Iraq to meet its obligations.”

Russia and China, both of which, like the United Kingdom, have veto power on the Security Council, revealed little of their negotiating positions on any potential new resolution.  According to Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, “Experience shows that no matter how complex international crises and conflicts may be, whatever challenges and threats they may be fraught with, they can be settled with the aid of United Nations instruments and at the basis of international law.  This fully applies to the situation around Iraq, which has long required political settlement in strict compliance with the Security Council resolutions.”

Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said, “We stand for a political settlement of the Iraqi issue. The United Nations should play an important role in this regard.  Iraq should implement the relevant Security Council resolutions in a faithful and strict manner.”

Mexico and Syria expressed the strongest concerns about the U.S. position.  Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda of Mexico said, “The Security Council is the proper body that can today adopt the necessary measures to achieve a lasting solution to the situation in Iraq.  That is why we welcome [Bush’s speech] regarding the importance that collective debate and decision will have, during the days and weeks to follow, in determining the actions that must be taken with regard to Iraq.”  He added, “It is essential for the council to be given the necessary time and support in order to facilitate the return of the U.N. inspectors, and we therefore support President Jacques Chirac’s recent proposal to set a specific period of time for meeting this objective” (see GSN, Sept. 9)

Castaneda added, “Mexico believes that unilateral military action taken without first consulting the council would undermine the foundations of the new world security architecture and could affect the consensus that has been reached in the battle against international terrorism.”

Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara of Syria told the assembly, “We strongly believe that striking Iraq, who no longer occupies the lands of others, while keeping silent about the Israeli occupation of the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, represent the blind bias and the distorted vision of the real situation in the Middle East.”  He said Israel has not implemented Security Council resolutions and has nuclear weapons.

“The international community has committed itself to the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. We cannot recall anyone doubting this commitment.  We also stress here that it is the right of the Iraqi people alone to decide their future without any interference in their internal affairs,” said al-Shara.  “Syria supports the resumption of dialogue between Iraq and the secretary general of the United Nations with the objective of reaching a political solution that responds to the requirements of the Security Council.”

Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen framed the issue more in terms of what the United Nations is doing rather than what the United States wants.  Saying his government supports the work of Secretary General Kofi Annan in his dealings with Iraq, Cowen added, “Let us express wholehearted agreement with the call by the secretary general for Iraq ‘to comply with its obligations for the sake of its own people and for the sake of world order. If Iraq’s defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities.’ We call on Iraq to respect its obligations and implement in full and without preconditions all the Security Council resolutions addressed to it ... Iraq’s leadership has it within its own power to end the current predicament and to alleviate the great hardship on its people.  It should do so without delay.”

Colombia, Mauritius and Singapore, all nonpermanent members of council, had little to say on the subject.

Germany, Malaysia Opposed to U.S. Attack

No country unconditionally defended Iraq.  All agreed that Iraq is in violation of Security Council resolutions calling for it to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction and to admit inspectors to ensure this has happened.  But there were also questions about the wisdom of military action and warnings that political solutions needed to be pursued.

Showing that the European Union is not united on this issue, Germany took a position at odds with the United Kingdom.  After calling the Iraqi government “horrendous for the Iraqi people and a risk for the region,” Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said, “We do not want, however, any automatism leading to the use of military force.  The fight against international terrorism remains highly dangerous.”

“The following central questions arise for us,” Fischer added.  “Have all economic and political means of pressure been truly exhausted?  To what consequences would military intervention lead?  What would this mean for regional stability?  What effect would it have on the Middle East conflict?  Are there new and definite findings and facts?  Does the threat assessment justify taking a very high risk — namely, the responsibility for peace and stability in the entire region, and what is more for years or even decades?  Would this meet with consent amongst the Arab neighbors?  What consequence would this have for the continuation of the global coalition against terrorism?  In the face of these open questions, we are full of deep skepticism regarding military action and therefore remain with our approach.”

Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told the assembly, “We remain concerned that targeting Iraq outside the framework of the United Nations and in contravention of international law will not only be wrong, but will result in a more volatile world order.”  While welcoming “the decision by the United States to work with the United Nations to address this issue rather than pursuing a unilateral policy of military intervention,” he said, “engaging the international community through the United Nations must not merely be an exercise in public diplomacy.  The international community cannot be made to assume that military intervention against Iraq, in the pursuit of both disarmament and regime change, is inevitable and that the United Nations is only being engaged as a matter of course.”

Badawi added, “A preemptive attack against Iraq without any credible evidence to the international community of the threat it poses will have serious implications on the international campaign against terrorism.”

Terrorism Still Seen as the Priority

Despite the intensifying debate over Iraq, the global campaign against terrorism dominated most of the speeches.  Several reminded the assembly that the draft comprehensive treaty on terrorism and the proposed conference on terrorism are still unresolved (see GSN, Feb. 4). 

Ivanov said, “The priority task in combating terrorism consists in strengthening its international legal framework.  First of all, a genuine universal character of the existing antiterrorist conventions should be secured. ... We are seriously concerned over the absence of real progress in negotiating a comprehensive convention on combating terrorism and a convention on suppressing the acts of nuclear terrorism.  The known differences in a number of states’ approaches to the content of these documents are quite reconcilable.”

Fischer told the assembly, “On the one hand, terrorism has to be resolutely fought by the military and police.  On the other hand, we need to solve the political and social conflicts quite rightly emphasized in the Millennium Declaration as these form the breeding ground for the emergence of terrorism.  Opting for one approach and neglecting the other risks failure.  This problem can only be solved through multilateralism, that is, if nations work together.  Terrorism does not stop at these borders and shaping globalization is a task that governments can no longer tackle alone.”

Badawi said, “We forget that, however unjustified, terrorism is often rooted in political and economic grievances that have still not been adequately addressed.  The fight against terrorism is not merely a fight against the perpetrators and conspirators of terrorist attacks, but it is also a fight against poverty, injustice, subjugation and illegal occupation that breeds anger and hatred.  There can be no comprehensive victory against terrorism if the root causes of terror are not eliminated.”

Disarmament Beyond Iraq

A few countries used Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction as a link to pleas for general elimination of these weapons.  Cowen of Ireland said, “The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear — is, of course, an issue that goes far beyond Iraq.  They represent a major threat to international peace and security.  The international instruments and regimes to control the spread, and bring about the elimination, of such weapons must be strengthened and fully implemented.  Ultimately, the long term control and elimination of weapons of mass destruction can only be achieved through a comprehensive and rigorous system of international treaties and obligations that are verifiable and universal.”

Russia lauded the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions between Russia and the United States, which Ivanov said “has become a specific contribution by the leading nuclear powers to the nuclear disarmament process.”  He then listed areas where Russia feels more progress is needed.  “The missile sphere needs a sustainable negotiating process aimed at concluding an international arrangement on a global regime of missile and missile technology nonproliferation. The prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space forms an integral part of the nonproliferation process.  Together with a number of our partners, we suggest that a comprehensive agreement be worked out aimed at preserving outer space as a zone free from any kind of weapons.”

Ivanov added, “Another most important area is ensuring nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  The very risk of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or their components falling into hands of irresponsible people and terrorists multiplies the destructive potential of international terrorism.”

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer of Australia took up the same line.  “We have to be alive to the willingness of terrorist groups to develop and use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.  Australia, for its part, intends to pursue practical and effective measures through international nonproliferation treaty regimes and export control arrangements.  These regimes and arrangements have delivered tangible security benefits, and should be supported strongly.”

Anerood Jugnauth of Mauritius said, “While we combine our efforts to wage a war on terrorism, we should, at the same time, continue to work towards global disarmament and a complete elimination of weapons of mass destruction within a specified timeframe.  My delegation reiterates its appeal for the early convening of a conference on nuclear disarmament.”

For more on Friday’s debate in the General Assembly, click here and here; for Saturday’s session, click here and here; and for Sunday’s meeting, click here and here.

Back to top

Radiological Weapons I:  Inspectors Clear Ship

U.S officials Friday cleared a German container ship on which inspectors had detected low levels of radiation (see GSN, Sept. 13).

The 708-foot Palermo Senator, which had been held six miles off the coast of New Jersey since Sept. 10, “poses no danger or threat,” FBI spokeswoman Sandra Carroll said.

Officials allowed the ship to enter Port Newark and unload its cargo after inspectors — including Coast Guard officials, FBI agents, Energy Department technicians and U.S. Navy personnel — determined the radiation occurred naturally in ceramic tiles on board (Ronald Smothers, New York Times, Sept. 14).

Back to top

Radiological Weapons II:  United States Wants Conference on “Dirty Bombs”

U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham today called for an international conference to focus on the threat of radiological dispersal devices, or “dirty bombs” (see GSN, Sept. 9).

Abraham addressed the International Atomic Energy Agency’s annual general conference, which started today in Vienna.

“Although these dirty bombs are not comparable to nuclear weapons in destructiveness, they are far easier to assemble and employ,” he said.

The United States plans to work with the IAEA to make the proposed conference a reality, Abraham said.  He has previously said that while the agency’s primary mission is to safeguard “weapons-usable material,” the threat has now expanded.

“The organization also needs to seek ways to formally expand its scope to deal with dangers posed by lower-grade nuclear materials,” Abraham said.  “The IAEA is the best and most appropriate vehicle for marshalling our collective resources.”

The proposed conference would encourage countries using IAEA resources to account for and track radiological materials (U.S. Energy Department release, Sept. 16).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP