A Question of Timing:

Print

By Julia Preston

New York Times
January 13, 2003

While the United States is trying to hurry things along in the debate in the United Nations about Iraq, other members of the Security Council are becoming more determined to take their time.


Differing interpretations of the timetable and procedures laid out in Resolution 1441 had been simmering under the surface since its unanimous adoption on Nov. 8 setting up the new round of weapons inspections in Iraq. Now those differences have percolated into view as the United States has made clear it wants to pass judgment on the results of the inspections much sooner than others on the 15-seat Council.

The debate centers on the importance of a broad report that the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, will deliver to the Council on Jan. 27, as mandated in the resolution. Bush administration officials say that could be a defining moment. They say the resolution can be read to say that Iraq must show by Jan. 27 that it is cooperating fully with the inspections and has disclosed all of its prohibited weapons.

Other Council nations are gazing considerably farther into the future. Diplomats from France and Russia, two veto-bearing Council members, contend that the resolution contains no deadline at all for Iraq to comply.

Many Council countries are seeking more time for diplomacy in Iraq because public opinion back home is only growing more skeptical of the need for war. The ubiquitous signs of the United States' full-tilt military buildup around Iraq are framing the discussion, as the Pentagon ordered thousands more troops to the Persian Gulf over the weekend. Several Council diplomats grumbled that the timing of a decision as weighty as authorizing war against Iraq should not be based solely on the danger of the scorching heat of Iraqi summer to American troops, a big factor in the Pentagon's calculations.

After Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei briefed the Council last Thursday on their first six weeks of work, United States officials pointed to the inspectors' criticism of Iraq's weapons declaration as evidence that it had gravely violated Resolution 1441. The resolution says that any "omissions or false statements" in the arms statement constitute elements of a serious breach.

But a surprising change came from Britain, a permanent member who is the United States' staunchest ally on the Council. British officials have revised their sense of urgency and have begun to emphasize that as long as the inspectors are fanned out across Iraq, there is little chance that Baghdad could build any secret weapons. Prime Minister Tony Blair told Parliament last week that Jan. 27 was not a deadline and that the inspectors needed "space and time" to do their work. British diplomats wondered out loud why war could not wait until August. British officials said they would try to convince the United States that the inspectors would have a good chance of finding evidence that Mr. Hussein had not been fully candid about his weapons programs if they were given more time. Mr. Blair is hoping for political cover from the inspectors. Deepening reluctance within his own Labor Party to an attack on Iraq has made it increasingly risky for him to join a war just on the United States' say-so. Nevertheless, Britain continued its military buildup, dispatching to the gulf the largest fleet it has mobilized since the 1982 Falklands war.

President Jacques Chirac of France, another permanent member and a major author of Resolution 1441, returned to his mantra that the Council can only go to war "once all the other options have been exhausted." He said France would vigorously resist any move by the United States to lead a war on its own. "Let us resolutely repudiate the temptation to act unilaterally," he said in a speech last week.

The results of a nationwide survey on Friday published in the French daily Le Figaro showed that 77 percent of those polled were opposed to war in Iraq. French diplomats said they saw no reason why Iraq's faulty weapons declaration had to be taken as a final document, as the Bush administration insists. They said Iraqi officials could fill in the gaps when they met with Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei in Baghdad on Jan. 19.

Russia, another permanent member, has indicated that it sees no endpoint for the inspections. "We are not in the business of building up military," said the Russian ambassador, Sergey Lavrov. "We're in the business of listening to the inspectors, the professionals."

The German ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, said Jan. 27 would not be an endpoint, but rather the first date when the inspections would finally be fully under way. Although Germany does not hold a veto, it added European support to Britain and France.

A majority of Council nations remain unconvinced that President Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons that pose an imminent threat. The chief inspectors said last week that they had found no smoking gun, and the United States has not disclosed any spectacular evidence either to the inspectors or to the Council.

Meanwhile, the nuclear defiance of North Korea is creating a serious problem of public perception for all Council nations. The Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, has insisted on provoking the United States by summarily expelling United Nations atomic inspectors, withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and moving to restart his nuclear reactors. By comparison, Mr. Hussein looks to many like a paragon of disarmament cooperation.

On Jan. 27, Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei will outline their program of work in Iraq for the next 60 days. For the time being, the Bush administration is pursuing all its options, building its case at the United Nations for early war while also giving the inspectors better intelligence to make their work more effective over time.

But for now, the administration's case is legalistic, asserting that Iraq failed to provide the active cooperation called for in Resolution 1441. Administration officials must decide in coming days whether their case is strong enough to force a Security Council showdown by the end of this month.


More Articles on the Threat of US War Against Iraq
More Information on the Iraq Crisis

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.