RIGHTS: Group Warns to Protect Iraqi People as U.N. Sees New Plans

By Haider Rizvi Reprint | | Print |

Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 24 2003 (IPS) - As the United States and Britain stressed to the U.N. Security Council on Monday that they do not intend to accept anything less than military action in Iraq, a human rights group reminded all sides to the potential conflict that they must protect civilian lives if an attack is launched.

”If there’s war in Iraq, civilians will bear the brunt of the suffering,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), in an open letter to the Council. ”Intense pressure from the Security Council may be the only hope for preventing a human rights disaster.”

HRW ”takes no position on whether war against Iraq is justified or legal,” he said. ”However, if war occurs, the Security Council should anticipate and try to minimise the risk to civilians.”

That would include U.S.-led forces refraining from attacking ”essential infrastructure and humanitarian goods” and the Iraq military not using civilians as human shields, the letter added.

HRW, which campaigned for the establishment of the International Criminal Court for years, urged the Council to commit to a process that would bring to justice anyone responsible for grave violations during hostilities.

”The Security Council should make it clear that anyone who orders or carries out atrocities against Iraqi civilians will be prosecuted for war crimes,” it said.

The letter came a few hours before the United States and Britain tabled a new resolution that would authorise military action against Iraq if approved by the nine members of the Council without a veto from one of five permanent members.

But despite intense pressure from the United States and Britain for the military option, most Council members appeared firm in their opposition to war.

”The majority has expressed the wish that we need to take more measures for more effective inspections,” Chinese Ambassador Wang Yingfan told reporters after Council discussions on the U.S.-U.K. resolution.

”It’s not totally a helpless situation,” he said, adding that it would take a week or more to study the proposal.

The draft resolution claims Iraq ”has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441”, a charge that many Council members reject, because there is no timeline for inspections in that resolution, which sent U.N. inspectors to Iraq searching for evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) late last year after a four-year hiatus.

Also sponsored by Spain, the draft accuses Iraq of providing a declaration about its WMD programmes that contained ”false statements and missions”, and charges that the nation has been and is ”in material breach” and has failed to ”fully cooperate” in the implementation of resolution 1441.

”There’s not much time left for us to wait,” said U.K. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock. ”There’s a need for clear action.”

In response to the resolution, France, Russia and Germany on Monday sponsored a joint memorandum that calls for at least five more months of inspections. ”While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destructions or capabilities in this field,” it says.

The memo stresses the need to disarm Iraq by ”peaceful means”.

”Inspections have just reached their full pace; they are functioning without hindrance; they have already produced results,” it adds.

Earlier this month, the lead U.N. inspectors in Iraq told the Security Council that Iraq continues to cooperate in their search on process but not in a pro-active manner. The inspectors’ next report is scheduled for Mar. 7.

The Chinese envoy said his government supported the joint memorandum, but would also look into the contents of the resolution. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is currently visiting Beijing, where he is believed to be trying to convince the Chinese leadership not to oppose a military strike on Iraq.

But the German representative rejected the U.S.-U.K. proposal.

”We don’t need a second resolution,” said Ambassador Gunter Pleuger, who is also president of the Security Council this month. ”We have the common goal to disarm Iraq in a peaceful way. How can you argue to stop the inspections?”

The French ambassador appeared to agree.

”There is no reason to discuss or adopt a new resolution,” said Jean-Marc de la Sabliere. ”The time has not come to discuss military options. The use of force should be a last resort.”

”This resolution is a declaration of war against Iraqi people,” added Mikhail Wehbe, the Syrian ambassador.

Diplomats said the Council discussed both the documents and would be sending them to their capitals for further scrutiny. The Council will return to discuss the proposals on Thursday.

HRW said Council members have a legacy of protecting non-combatants that they must continue to follow.

”In recent years, the Security Council has made important commitments to protect civilians from the worst excesses of war,” said Roth. ”The Iraqi crisis will test these commitments. The Iraqi people cannot afford the Council to fall.”