The Associated Press
March 2, 1998
Security Council members voiced strong
opposition Monday to a U.S.-backed resolution on Iraq, fearing it
would give automatic approval for a military attack if Baghdad
fails to comply with a weapons-inspection accord.
After a four-hour meeting, British Ambassador John Weston said the
council would return later Monday to discuss the latest revisions.
A vote was expected if all 15 members agreed on the final wording.
U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson said the United States ``is pleased with the progress that has been made.'' ``We look forward to a vote,'' he added. But the difficulties encountered in reaching a consensus cast doubt on the Clinton administration's claims that if Iraq violated the deal there would be strong international support for military action.
Envoys from such countries as Brazil, Costa Rica and Portugal, which normally support the U.S. stand against Iraq, made clear they opposed any resolution that would give Washington a blank check for an attack if Iraq doesn't honor the accord. ``It is very clear that only the Security Council has the authority to approve an armed military action,'' Costa Rican Ambassador Fernando Berrocal Soto told reporters.
In Baghdad on Monday, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told CNN the proposed resolution is an attempt by the United States and Britain to lay the foundation for an attack. The resolution, submitted by Britain and Japan, would endorse an agreement reached last week in Baghdad by Secretary-General Kofi Annan that allows U.N. inspectors to visit eight presidential palaces. The Iraqis had placed the palaces off-limits, calling them sovereign sites.
The inspectors are trying to determine if Iraq has complied with U.N. orders, issued at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, to destroy all long-range missiles and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Only then will the council lift crippling economic sanctions imposed in 1990 after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, touching off the Gulf conflict. Since last week, the British and Japanese have circulated several versions of the resolution in an attempt to satisfy all council members. The original draft warned Iraq of ``severest consequences'' if it violated the accord.
That was softened Friday to ``very serious consequences,'' but in an apparent attempt to placate Washington, the ``severest consequences'' phrase was reinserted into the text on Monday. With an eye toward its critics, the resolution also said the council would remain engaged in the issue ``for the purpose of ensuring implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.''
That was intended to satisfy those members who want to retain council control over any decision to use force. Several council members also wanted to make sure they have a say in determining whether future Iraqi actions -- such as banning specific inspectors -- would be serious enough to warrant military force.
A council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Britain and Japan offered assurances that the resolution contained no automatic authorization for an attack on Iraq if the agreement is violated. The diplomat said ambassadors from those countries were expected to state that position publicly in speeches when the vote is taken. In an interview Sunday with ``CNN Late Edition,'' Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Nizar Hamdoon, said Baghdad would honor the accord worked out by Annan, which eased the immediate threat of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq to end the weapons standoff.
But Hamdoon also said Iraq opposed open-ended and repeat inspections, even though no time limit is contained in the agreement with the secretary-general. ``I think that all the understanding was it should be within a reasonable time,'' Hamdoon said. ``I mean, this process cannot continue forever.''
He also told CNN that Iraq expected diplomats to be in charge of the inspection teams, a comment that drew a sharp reply from Richard Butler, the chief U.N. weapons inspector. Butler told CNN it was ``perfectly clear'' in the accord that general responsibility was his, and that inspection reports would go from him through Annan to the Security Council.
On Monday, however, Hamdoon said his remarks had been misinterpreted. ``I did not say that the diplomats would be in charge of it,'' Hamdoon said, referring to palace inspections. ``I said that the secretary-general will have an authority over the work of the team.''
The deal provides for a special group of U.N. inspectors and
diplomats to inspect the palaces. The agreement stipulates that the
special group will be headed by a U.N. official but that Butler's
team retains operational control.
