IRAQ-UN: United States Takes Firm Stance as UN Envoys Depart

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 4 1997 (IPS) - Three U.N. envoys headed for Iraq Tuesday with one clear instruction driven home to them by the United States: Don’t negotiate.

Before the three diplomats – Lakhdar Brahimi of Algeria, Emilio Cardenas of Argentina and Jan Eliasson of Sweden – arrive in Baghdad, U.S. officials were adamant that the U.N. team must restrict itself to warning Baghdad not to follow through with plans to expel U.S. weapons monitors from Iraq.

“We are hopeful that the mission will succeed,” U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson said Monday night. “But it’s very clear that the purpose of this mission is not to negotiate.”

British Ambassador John Weston agreed, saying that the three diplomats are being sent only to explain “in words of one syllable” how Iraq “has miscalculated again in challenging the authority of the United Nations.”

The United States had for several days opposed U.N. Secretary- General Kofi Annan’s offer to send three mediators to Iraq to avert a confrontation in which Baghdad has threatened to force out all U.N. weapons inspectors of U.S. nationality by Wednesday.

Diplomatic sources say that Washington only agreed to the mission after Annan made it clear that the team, led by Brahimi, would only repeat the U.N. Security Council’s demand to back off from the expulsion threat and not launch its own negotiations. With that proviso in place, Richardson affirmed that the Security Council – which has been increasingly divided over how to deal with Baghdad – is united in its effort to prevent the expulsions.

“There is nothing to negotiate,” said U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard. “This is a diplomatic effort to defuse a very tense situation.”

He added that, with the solid support of the 15-nation Security Council behind the team’s dispatch, “any idea that the Council is divided on this issue has now been dispelled.”

Annan said Monday that he also hoped that the team’s dispatch would at least delay the expulsion threat. “I would hope that the (Wednesday) deadline would not be implemented while my team is in Baghdad.” The team is expected to return to New York by the weekend, Annan added.

Nevertheless, the sending of the U.N. team – which was offered by Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz as a way to resolve the standoff over the presence of U.S. nationals among the 100-member U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) which monitors Iraqi weaponry – is itself a qualified victory for Baghdad.

Days after Aziz wrote the Security Council to warn that all U.S. nationals would be expelled by this Wednesday, the Council has only warned of unspecified “serious consequences” before relying on the very solution — a U.N. mediating team — suggested by Iraq.

Meanwhile, Iraq has already used the expulsion threat to prevent two different flights, each containing three U.S. investigators, from entering Habbaniya Airport over the past week. On Monday, U.N. officials confirmed, three different UNSCOM teams – each of which contained U.S. members — were forced to turn back after the Iraqis refused to allow the Americans to proceed. (According to Eckhard, there are currently seven U.S. nationals working for UNSCOM in Iraq.)

Tension increased over the weekend, when U.S. officials accused Iraqi Ambassador Nizar Hamdoon of threatening to shoot down U.S. planes, which have flown freely over Iraq ever since the 1991 Gulf War, if further U-2 flights planned for Wednesday take place.

“Iraq expects a military aggression against it by the United States,” Hamdoon wrote in a letter to UNSCOM Chair Richard Butler, warning of the U.N. monitors’ responsibility if the flights take place when “our anti-aircraft artillery is open everywhere in anticipation of possible aggression.”

“There is another Iraqi threat this time, this time against a U.N. plane,” Richardson argued. “We think that it’s irresponsible, that it’s wrong.” Richardson has said that the United States intends to plan its response with the rest of the Security Council, but U.S. officials have argued that no responses – including military ones – are being excluded.

There are limits, however, to what Washington can do at a time when support for the seven-year-old U.N. embargo against Iraq is waning. Russia, France and China – which, along with Britain and the United States, comprise the powerful, veto-holding permanent membership of the Security Council – have all pushed for an easing of sanctions, and last month abstained from a resolution that set plans for a possible travel ban against recalcitrant Iraqi leaders.

Those three countries have stood with Washington and London in condemning the expulsion threat, and Russian and French diplomats have tried in recent days to persuade Baghdad to back down. But they also call for a conspicuously softer line on Iraq. “We have to be guided by facts,” Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said Monday, refusing to give any response on what the Council would do if Iraq carries out its threat.

Weston also would not specify any particular action the Council may take if the mission fails. “The Security Council is not in the business of threatening anybody,” he said.

In the long term, U.S. diplomats are pleased at least that Baghdad’s actions have for now ended the disunity in the Council and boosted their diplomatic advantage in their quest to penalise Iraq for its recent obstruction of UNSCOM. But in the short term, Iraq may gain if it is perceived to have had the advantage in the talks with the U.N. team.

Acknowledging the challenges his diplomats face at a time when they are explicitly prohibited from “negotiating”, Annan wryly commented that “we are going to really see our negotiating abilities.”