Politics:
UN Security Council Split on Meaning of Iraq Vote

BY Thalif Deen

Inter-Press Service

Despite unanimously supporting a U.S. resolution on arms inspections in Iraq, permanent members of the United Nations Security Council still appeared split Friday on the possible outcomes of the move.

The 15-0 vote ended more than seven weeks of closed-door negotiations, diplomatic arm-twisting and implicit threats of unilateral military action against the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Back to Alternative Reader Index 

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 8 (IPS) - Despite unanimously supporting a U.S. resolution on arms inspections in Iraq, permanent members of the United Nations Security Council still appeared split Friday on the possible outcomes of the move.

The 15-0 vote ended more than seven weeks of closed-door negotiations, diplomatic arm-twisting and implicit threats of unilateral military action against the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Russia and France, which along with the United States, China and Britain are permanent Security Council members with power to veto votes, had been holding out support for the resolution fearing that it gave U.S. President George W. Bush automatic approval to attack if Saddam did not cooperate with inspections.

Officials of the two countries said following the vote that they reversed their positions after assurances that the United States would return to the Security Council if inspections failed.

Ambassador Jean-David Levitte of France, who held out against the resolution until late Thursday night, said his country welcomed the lack of ''automaticity'' in the final resolution.

Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov agreed that the resolution did not contain any provision for the automatic use of force. He underlined that the sponsors of the resolution - the United States and Britain - had affirmed that publicly.

China's Ambassador Zhang Yishan said his delegation backed the resolution because it supported the Chinese stance during negotiations.

''The purpose (of the resolution) was to disarm Iraq, and it no longer contained any 'automaticity' for the use of force,'' he said. ''The Security Council must meet again if there was non-compliance by Iraq'', he added.

All three delegations said they believed that the resolution means that only the Security Council could authorise an attack on Iraq.

But U.S. officials, while admitting they would return to the Security Council if inspections failed, stated clearly that they were prepared to decide alone whether to attack Iraq.

''The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardising our freedom of action to defend our country,'' said U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington.

''If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein,'' he added.

The message was repeated by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte.

''If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threats posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant U.N. resolutions and protect world peace and security,'' he added.

''This resolution affords Iraq a final opportunity,'' he said quoting a statement by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said last month that ''if Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities''.

The resolution was also supported by all 10 non-permanent Security Council members: Ireland, Mexico, Colombia, Mauritius, Syria, Singapore, Bulgaria, Guinea, Cameroon and Norway.

Annan, who for weeks had expressed the hope that the Security Council would eventually stand united, told delegates that the resolution strengthened the cause of peace, ''and (has) given renewed impetus to the search for security in an increasingly dangerous world''.

He said that the resolution sets out in clear terms Iraq's obligation to cooperate with the United Nations in ensuring the full and final disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction.

''It leaves no doubt as to what these obligations are, nor as to how they must be fulfilled. Iraq now has a new opportunity to comply with all the relevant resolutions of the Security Council.''

Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri told reporters that his country will ''certainly study the resolution and decide whether we can accept it or not''.

But he said he was surprised by the support given to the resolution by Syria, Iraq's neighbour, which stood by Iraq until voting time. 

''I don't blame anyone,'' al-Douri said, ''We respect and understand all the votes.''

November 2002  Bulatlat.com

We want to know what you think of this article.