POLITICS-IRAQ: Council Rift on Iraq Is Hard to Heal

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 31 1999 (IPS) - The UN Security Council has struggled for the past two weeks to shape its policy on Iraq, but is still unable even to draw up guidelines for a major review of Iraqi disarmament and sanctions.

Most diplomats remain confident that a “comprehensive review” of Iraq’s compliance with UN disarmament demands and the effects of the eight-year embargo can be agreed to fairly soon. But the difficulties in obtaining such a review as the first step toward determining an Iraq policy demonstrate just how much the Council was affected by the Dec. 16-19 U.S./UK attacks on Iraq.

“There is no reason why we shouldn’t be able to come to an agreement” on a review, argued Ambassador Celso Amorim of Brazil, who presided over the 15-nation Council in January. Yet despite agreement on most major guidelines for a future review, the main Council powers remain divided in their general outlook on Iraq, and that division has prevented any review from taking place.

When plans for a comprehensive review were first mooted last fall, Iraq had resumed cooperation, although grudgingly, with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspectors. For its part, after building up its forces in the Persian Gulf, the United States appeared to be adopting a patient approach to Iraq.

All that ended on Dec. 16, at the same time that U.S. President Bill Clinton faced impeachment in the House of Representatives over perjury and obstruction of justice allegations. On that day, the U.S. and British governments reacted to an UNSCOM report criticising Baghdad’s cooperation with the inspectors by launching four days of air strikes against Iraq.

By U.S. estimates, Baghdad’s weapons programmes were set back by at least a year as a result of the strikes. But in many ways, Council unity on Iraq has been set back further.

“The sides keep sticking to the same positions,” one Council diplomat said Friday. “We can’t agree on a review because there is still no agreement over what kind of role UNSCOM should play.”

Since the attacks, Russia and China have bitterly criticised UNSCOM and its chairman, Richard Butler, for playing into the hands of the White House, while France has joined them in calling for an end to intrusive weapons inspections altogether. All three nations are also seeking a phasing out of the UN sanctions.

By contrast, the United States and Britain are willing to concede the need to allow Baghdad an unlimited exemption from sanctions in order to buy humanitarian goods under UN monitoring. Yet as recent sporadic attacks between U.S. and British planes patrolling Iraqi “no-fly” zones and Iraqi batteries targeting the planes show, the December hostilities have yet to end.

With near-daily battles in the no-fly zones, a lingering air of mistrust hovers over virtually every aspect of the UN relationship with Iraq. On Friday, Malaysia tried to bring a discussion of the legality of the no-fly zones – instituted by the United States, Britain and France without UN approval – into the Security Council.

As one diplomat noted afterward, the defenders and critics of no-fly zones traded a few accusations, but the Council quickly moved on to other business.

The no-fly flap, however, is a symptom of a basic disparity: the United States, aided by Britain, is dedicated more than ever to overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, while most countries are seeking an end to the sanctions that have isolated and ruined Iraq.

Since the December strikes, most U.S. initiatives – including those requiring the involvement of UNSCOM and Butler – have attracted suspicion among governments wary of Washington’s desire to change the Iraqi government. In January, UN officials leaked news that UNSCOM, with Butler’s knowledge, had shared secret information about Iraq’s leadership – including Saddam Hussein’s whereabouts – with U.S. intelligence officials .

The ensuing humiliation has convinced many diplomats here that Butler’s tenure as UNSCOM chief is limited, even though the White House is standing by him. France and Russia now also want Secretary-General Kofi Annan and existing UN bodies monitoring nuclear and chemical weapons to play a greater role and UNSCOM a lesser one.

As long as that dispute lasts, the review – which under a Canadian proposal would include UNSCOM testimony about Iraq’s compliance with disarmament – remains in limbo.

Similarly, an UNSCOM report issued last week about Iraq’s cooperation with demands to eliminate its chemical, biological, nuclear and long-range weapons met sharply different reactions in the Council. The United States praised the report, but Russia, China and Malaysia dismissed its findings as old news, and blocked attempts to distribute it outside the Council.

The report itself indicates some of the hurdles that would have to be climbed even if UNSCOM’s current work, such as surprise inspections of weapons sites, ends. Even if UN inspectors only perform “ongoing monitoring and verification”, or non-intrusive inspections favoured by most Council members, the system would require more than 50 million dollars a year, as well as a staff of more than 350 personnel, the report said.

The report thus points to one almost undisputed fact: whether or not the Council can ever unite in support for sanctions or UNSCOM again, Iraq’s problems in ending its isolation are many years away from ending.