POLITICS: U.S., Britain Cautious About New U.N. Resolution on Iraq

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 20 2003 (IPS) - Faced with the threat of a possible veto by France, the United States and Britain are cautiously testing the political waters before they pursue a new U.N. Security Council resolution that would authorise the use of military force against Iraq, say diplomats here.

Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of Britain told reporters Wednesday that his government has not decided when it should ”move forward” on a second resolution. ”The text has not been decided because we have a whole menu of options,” he added.

”We will move forward for discussion on the basis of a draft resolution in the fairly near future. But the decision on the timing is not in my hands,” Greenstock said.

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte expressed similar views when he told reporters that Washington has made no final decision on the proposed resolution. But the United States and Britain are in close consultation, he said.

The two countries were expected to propose the resolution following the second progress report by U.N. arms inspectors to the Security Council earlier this month on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The inspectors reported that the administration of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had acceded fully to all their requests but was still not proactively cooperating. It had been speculated that U.S. and U.K. officials would table a motion immediately following the inspectors’ presentation but they appeared taken aback by the passionate anti-war declarations by the other permanent Council members – China, Russia and especially France.

On Wednesday, Greenstock said that a new resolution would be ”very closely” based on resolution 1441, which was unanimously adopted by the 15-member Security Council in late November, sending inspectors back to the country after a four-year hiatus.

That resolution not only authorised renewed arms inspections but also warned Iraq of ”serious consequences” if it refused to cooperate with inspectors in their search for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq.

If proposed, a new resolution is expected to include a strict deadline for Iraq to comply with the demand to reveal any weapons of mass destruction. The alternative would be military force against Baghdad.

But some doubt to see that proposal.

”The United States will not undergo the political humiliation of having its resolution vetoed,” predicted an Asian diplomat. ”If Washington cannot avoid a veto, it may decide to scrupulously keep away from the Security Council.”

On Tuesday, U.S. President George W. Bush said he was willing to cooperate ”with our friends and allies” at the United Nations in drafting a new resolution, but argued that such a resolution may not be necessary ”as far as I am concerned”.

Bush has already warned that Resolution 1441 gives him the authority he needs to launch a military attack on Iraq.

But an overwhelming majority of the U.N.’s 191 member states disagree. Led by the 115-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), they have argued that an attack on Iraq without explicit authorisation by the Security Council would be in violation of the U.N. charter.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters last week that France does not see the need for a second resolution at this stage. ”If U.N. arms inspectors come back to the Security Council and say they cannot work anymore in Iraq, we can use all means, including force, to get compliance from Iraq,” he added.

On Wednesday, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin was more explicit on the use of the veto, calling it, ”a very strategic element of France’s independence”.

All five permanent members of the Council have veto powers.

The Security Council can adopt a resolution if it receives nine positive votes and no vetoes. The United States may still be able to get the nine votes it needs but it fears a French veto.

Greenstock said that a two-day open meeting of the Security Council that ended Wednesday presented two main strands of views.

Most members, he said, pointed out that Iraq must fulfil its obligations to disarm by cooperating with arms inspectors.

And most also made a public plea to the Security Council: ”Please do not do this by the use of force. And please do this peacefully.”

”The United Kingdom subscribes to both views,” Greenstock said, but pointed out that no member state has so far put forward a proposal on how to achieve complete disarmament without military enforcement.

”If Iraq does not disarm voluntarily, how do we get there without military action?” he asked. ”The test for the Security Council is how do we deal with that defiance.”

Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov told reporters Wednesday that he hasn’t seen any new resolutions. ”We are waiting.”

Asked whether he would like to participate in drafting a new resolution, he said ”No, why should I?”

”Is there anything that needs to be fixed regarding inspections?” he asked. ”If there isn’t anything, why is there a need for a new resolution?”