U.S. May Budge On Iraq Resolution
"Those who chose to live in denial may eventually be forced to live in fear," President Bush
Oct. 17, 2002
UNITED NATIONS, — Amid a continuing and often contentious U.N. debate on Iraq on Thursday, the United States appeared to back down from its demands for a U.N. resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. Diplomats told the Associated Press that the U.S. is now floating a compromise that would drop the tough wording explicitly threatening Iraq. They said France is studying the new offer. The French had opposed the threat of force in the original U.S. draft proposal.
THE REPORTED compromise comes a day after more than two dozen nations, including Iraq’s closest neighbors and key U.S. allies, refused to endorse the Bush administration’s demand for a new U.N. resolution that would authorize military force if Baghdad fails to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspections.
They said Iraq must be given a chance to completely disarm without the imminent threat of military action.
The first open Security Council debate on the Iraq crisis clearly showed that the wider U.N. membership favors a two-resolution approach proposed by France and backed by Russia and China.
The first resolution would toughen U.N. inspections and warn that Iraq will face consequences, including the possible use of force, if it doesn’t comply with inspections. The second would authorize action against Iraq if it failed to cooperate.
According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Secretary of State Colin Powell reached out to his French and Russian counterparts Wednesday and offered a compromise that could end the diplomatic deadlock.
Citing U.S. sources, the newspaper said Powell suggested a resolution that would call for serious consequences if Iraq does not comply with weapons inspections, but would not authorize the use of force.
If Iraq then failed to disarm, the Bush administration would agree to return to the Security Council for further debate and possibly another resolution authorizing action, the sources told the newspaper. If the council could not agree on what to do, the United States would then have the prerogative to form its own coalition to forcibly disarm Iraq, they said.
WARNINGS AGAINST A NEW WAR
In speech after speech on Wednesday, ambassadors from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America called Iraq’s decision last month to allow U.N. inspectors to return an important first step — and said the council should send the inspectors back quickly and test Baghdad’s commitment.
Many warned that a new war would add to the suffering of the Iraqi people, possibly engulf the Middle East, and have dire consequences on global stability and the world economy.
“This war is useless because its motives are not well-founded,” said Tunisia’s U.N. Ambassador Noureddine Mejdoub. “It would unleash a chain of reactions in Iraq and in the region. ... The conflict would give extremists a pretext for expanding the war even further.”
The council meeting was held at the behest of the Non-Aligned Movement, comprising 115 mainly developing countries that favor a peaceful solution in Iraq, and it was open to all 191 U.N. member states. Some 50 nations that aren’t on the council took up the opportunity to speak; the 15 council members were expected to wrap up the debate Thursday.
South Africa’s U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, whose country heads the Non-Aligned Movement, said he was delighted with the more than two dozen speeches on Wednesday.
“The overwhelming majority supported our position: Let the inspectors go back. Let Iraq live up to its responsibility,” he said.
As Nigeria’s U.N. Ambassador Chief Arthur Mbanefo put it: “Iraq must seize this moment to demonstrate to the world its peaceful intentions.”
BAGHDAD PLEASED
Iraq’s U.N. Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri was pleased with the speeches, and said he expected to hear more of the same Thursday.
Reiterating that Iraq would cooperate with inspectors “in every possible way,” al-Douri told the council that the United States was attempting “to hamper and delay the return of inspectors” to adopt a new resolution which would serve as “a pretext to cover aggression against Iraq.”
The U.S. aim, he charged, is “colonizing our country and imposing American domination on our oil as a first step towards imposing American colonialism in the region as a whole, controlling its oil, and allowing Israel to continue its war of genocide against the Palestinian people.”
Since the 1980s, Iraq has gone to war with two of its neighbors — Iran and Kuwait — but neither supported an immediate authorization to use force. Both urged the Iraqi government to strictly comply with all U.N. resolutions to avert war.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
Several U.S. allies — the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — backed the U.S. view that after 11 years of failing to comply with U.N. resolutions, Iraq should be given a tough new mandate on weapons inspections.
None of the allies called for a new resolution to include a green light for military action.
Calling Iraq’s failure to comply with U.N. demands to disarm a grave international challenge, Secretary-General Kofi Annan also backed a new U.N. resolution that would toughen weapons inspections and urged Baghdad to use this “last chance.”
If Iraq fails to comply, he said, the Security Council “will have to face its responsibilities.”
Link to Article Source
|
|
