12 November 1997
U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSES NEW SANCTIONS ON IRAQI OFFICIALS
(U.S. says crisis not over till Iraq cooperates with UNSCOM) (1380) By Judy Aita USIA United Nations Correspondent United Nations -- Condemning Iraq for blocking weapons inspections, the U.N. Security Council November 12 unanimously voted to tighten sanctions against Baghdad by targeting Iraqi officials. The resolution, which was first proposed by the United States and Great Britain and co-sponsored by Chile, Costa Rica, Japan, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, and Sweden, imposes an immediate travel ban on Iraqi officials and military officers who have had a part in blocking the inspections of the Special Commission overseeing the destruction of Iraqi weapons (UNSCOM) and threatened UNSCOM surveillance flights. The Council said that until Iraq resumes cooperation with the U.N. all nations must "prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of all Iraqi officials and members of the Iraqi armed forces" who participated in blocking UNSCOM operations. The Council also demanded that Iraq rescind immediately its decision to expel UNSCOM weapons inspectors of U.S. nationality and not allow any other American working for the commission into the country. U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson said that "the crisis with Iraq is not over. The end game is the re-opening unconditionally of UNSCOM. This is not a resolution about just travel sanctions." "The Security Council has been united. The message has been clear. Iraq must comply or face consequences. This is a united Security Council vote: 15 to nothing, no abstentions, no no's, all affirmative," the ambassador said. Talking with journalists after the meeting Richardson pointed out that the "deadline for Iraq is very clear: comply immediately." If Iraqi officials do not begin cooperating with UNSCOM "that will be an affront to the United Nations, the Security Council, to the international community," Richardson said. "That's their choice. They'll have to face the consequences....There will be negative consequences." In its resolution the Council expressed "the firm intention to take further measures as may be required" but does not threaten serious consequences or authorize the use of force if Iraq does not comply. Some Council members object to authorizing use of force. However, Richardson told the journalists the U.S. is "not precluding any options, including the military option." In his speech during the formal Council meeting Richardson also stressed that the sanctions target only Iraq's leaders not its people. "The United States feels, just as does every member of this body, compassion for the Iraqi people and empathy for their plight. That is why the U.N. and the Sanctions Committee have gone to great lengths -- battling Iraqi obstructionism at every step -- to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance," Richardson said. "The United States looks forward to the day when the sanctions against Iraq can be lifted. It is not our desire to see Iraq, a land of past greatness which could be great again, permanently saddled with U.N. sanctions," the ambassador said. "But Iraq must first comply fully and unconditionally with the requirement of the relevant Security Council resolutions," he said. "There is a light at the end of the tunnel and the Iraqi leaders control the switch." The Council had been meeting privately since October 29 when Iraq announced that it would expel all Americans working for UNSCOM and then escalated the problem, first blocking inspections and then threatening to shoot down UNSCOM reconnaissance flights. Council members began discussing the U.S. proposal to impose sanctions after a special diplomatic mission on behalf of Secretary General Kofi Annan was rebuffed in Baghdad. Council members, noting that Iraq failed to grasp opportunities offered by their own governments as well as Annan's envoys, moved quickly to impose the travel sanctions. They also refused to give Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who traveled to U.N. headquarters to personally deliver his government complaints, a hearing. Japanese Ambassador Hisashi Owada pointed out that Baghdad not only did not respond to diplomatic efforts of the secretary general, but his government's interventions. Owada called upon Iraq "to accede to this united voice of the international community." Swedish Ambassador Hans Dahlgren characterized Iraq's actions as "a challenge to the entire United Nations" and a "flagrant violation" of Council resolutions. The resolution, Dahlgren said, "sends a clear message of the continuing determination of the Council that weapons be eliminated." Referring to Tariq Aziz's failed attempt to air his complaints before the Council, the Swedish ambassador said "if Iraq wants to find an audience for grievances, it must establish itself as a credible partner." Costa Rican Ambassador Fernando Berrocal Soto said that at the core of the problem are "the outright defiance of Iraq to the international community" and "a political challenge with unforeseeable implications for the Council." Berrocal Soto said that time has not weakened the unanimous, strong censure of international community for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and determination to see Iraqi weapons of mass destruction eliminated. On October 23, five nations abstained on a resolution threatening to impose the sanctions in six months if Iraq did not stop interfering with inspections. The resolution, which then passed by a vote of 10-0, was the result of UNSCOM's earlier complaints about Iraqis officials threatening inspectors on board helicopters and refusing to allow teams at some sites. The countries abstaining -- China, Russia, France, Egypt, and Kenya -- acknowledged that there were problems with Iraq's cooperation but disagreed on imposing new sanctions while, they said, Iraq was still cooperating with UNSCOM in other aspects of the destruction of the banned biological, chemical, ballistic and nuclear weapons. All five voted to impose the travel ban after the latest round of problems. Egyptian Ambassador Nabil El-Araby noted the sensitive position his government finds itself in when considering imposing restrictions on an Arab state. But, he said, Iraq's refusal to cooperate and rebuff of diplomatic initiatives left his government "no alternative but to support the resolution." Iraq's actions are "unacceptable to us...(and) not in the interest of any party including Iraq itself," el-Araby said. "We do not see the wisdom in Iraq's position," the Egyptian ambassador said. "It means it delays a long way the lifting of sanctions. Complete cooperation is the way to lift sanctions." Kenyan Ambassador Njuguna Mahugu said that the resolution is "balanced and sends a clear message to Iraq." His government also wants to see a level of cooperation from Iraq that would allow the Council to begin holding sanctions review that will lead to the lifting of sanctions. French Ambassador Alain Dejammet also noted that his government made repeated entreaties to Iraqi authorities to try to convince them to rescind their decision. "Right to the last minute we thought reason would prevail. Unfortunately that was not the case," Dejammet said. Meanwhile, for the ninth day in a row Iraq blocked UNSCOM inspections because U.S. inspectors were members of the team. In a speech earlier in the day before the General Assembly the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Hans Blix, said that his agency also has problems with Iraq and is concerned that Iraq may be hiding information about its nuclear weapons program. IAEA works with UNSCOM to oversee the nuclear component of the weapons destruction program. While IAEA has been able to draw "a coherent picture" of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, Blix said "especially in the face of Iraq's past practice of concealment, it is not possible to guarantee that the picture is complete nor that there could not still be some concealed components, activities, and facilities which did not form part of the technically coherent picture." IAEA "has been much concerned about Iraq's refusal to facilitate the use by IAEA/UNSCOM of fixed wing aircraft to transport personnel and equipment within Iraq. We have been even more concerned about the recent attempt by Iraq to limit the free choice of inspectors," Blix said. "We must be aware that any refusal of access could be caused by an interest to conceal something. Such refusals therefore run counter to Iraq's efforts to convince the inspectors and the world that nothing is hidden," he said. "It must be recognized that Iraq retains, in its core of scientists and engineers, nuclear-weapons-related expertise and relevant documentation," Blix said.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
