POLITICS: U.N Approves Travel Ban on Iraq

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 12 1997 (IPS) - The U.N. Security Council Wednesday unanimously approved a resolution punishing Iraq for blocking U.N. weapons inspectors and imposed an immediate travel ban on Iraqi leaders responsible for obstructing the monitors.

The 15-nation Council ordered all governments “without delay to prevent the entry or transit through their territories of all Iraqi officials and members of the Iraqi armed forces who were responsible for, or participated in, the instances of non- compliance.”

The resolution also suspended a review of Iraqi sanctions, which have been in effect since 1990, until next April. That suspension and the travel ban will remain in effect as long as Baghdad does not rescind its threat to expel all U.S. nationals working for the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM). Th group is entrusted with monitoring the destruction of Iraqi biological, chemical, nuclear and long-range missile weaponry.

The Council also declared its “firm intention to take further measures as may be required” to force Iraqi compliance. But after objections by several Council members – notably France, Russia, China and Egypt – the U.N. executive body dropped any threat of “serious consequences” or similar language that could result in a U.S. or international military strike against Iraq.

Washington declared itself saisfied with vote, which put into force a travel ban that the United States was unsuccessful in obtaining only three weeks ago.

“The Security Council is united in its determination that Iraq must comply with the resolutions of the Council and that Iraq must reverse its decisions challenging the Council and the international community,” U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson said Wednesday.

He noted that the unity of the Council on Iraq – which faltered in recent months as Russia and France led a call for easing the seven-year embargo – had been bolstered by Iraq’s threat to expel the U.S. weapons monitors, six of whom remain in Baghdad.

The latest should prove that “the lifting of sanctions must follow compliance, not precede it,” Richardson said.

Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s deputy prime minister, had lobbied diplomats here this week in an attempt to convince the United Nations that Baghdad would cooperate with UNSCOM, but had to be assured that such compliance would ultimately result in the lifting of sanctions. The U.N. embargo, according to previous Council resolutions, must be lifted once UNSCOM has verified that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have been scrapped.

Iraqi officials no longer believe that compliance with UNSCOM would mean would any such promise being fulfilled. Aziz accused UNSCOM of being dominated by the United States government and “they are not going to lift the sanctions on Iraq unless our head (President Saddam Hussein) is removed.”

Even Iraqi allies like Egypt allowed that, while sanctions should be lifted, the recent standoff on U.N. inspections is not the solution.

‘We do not see the wisdom in this (current) position, because completing the cooperation of Iraq with UNSCOM…is the way to lift the sanctions on Iraq and therefore is the way to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people,” said Egyptian Ambassador Nabil al-Araby.

Richardson agreed saying “There is light at the end of the tunnel, and the Iraqi leaders control the switch.”

Not all Security Council members spoke with the same voice on sanctions. Russia and France continued to push for a timetable that could demonstrate to Iraq that the embargo will be lifted once it has completed its work in identifying and destroying prohibited weapons stocks. Referring to Richardson’s comments, Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said that “if Iraq is in control of the switch, there should be some electric current that goes along the wires.”

Similarly, the Council remains divided on how to respond if, as Aziz threatened, Iraq reacts to its failure to win any concessions here by carrying out its expulsion threat.

U.S. officials, including President Bill Clinton, have said that all options – including military strikes – remain open. But many of the nations who voted for the travel ban Wednesday were clear in their desire to continue a diplomatic process and avoid any military escalation.

“Any action taken…must strictly be in accordance with the framework of the Security Council,” French Ambassador Alain Dejammet said in emphasising the need to maintain the current diplomatic efforts.

Washington’s push to get the resolution through the Security Council came at a time when its UN allies have grown more resentful about the U.S. failure to pay the world body arrears estimated at almost 1.5 billion dollars.

The administration agreed with Republican lawmakers earlier this year on a package that would provide slightly more than half that total over the next three years. But Congress is about to adjourn for the rest of the year, and analysts say the arrears package may not be approved in time.

In Washington, State Department spokesman James Rubin noted Wednesday that time was quickly running out and there is a “real possibility” that Congress may leave town without approving funding for the UN.

“We may be in a position where we need to go back to obtain support from the United Nations for further measures against Iraq,” he said. “Not having a package that the United Nations members are looking forward to at the same time we’re looking for their support (in the UN) could be very damaging to our interests in trying to deter and contain Saddam Hussein,” he warned.