26 February 1998
US WANTS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON NEW IRAQ AGREEMENT
(Richardson to Iraq: you will pay if you fail to honor pact) (660) By Judy Aita USIA United Nations Correspondent United Nations -- U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson said February 26 that the United States wants the Security Council to adopt a resolution warning Iraq it faces serious consequences if it breaks the new agreement with the U.N. Such a resolution is being drafted by Great Britain, which is also coordinating negotiations among the permanent five members of the council (China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States) and with the ten non-permanent members. In addition to threatening the "severest consequences," the draft of the resolution also stresses that any procedures relating to U.N. weapons inspectors' access to presidential sites must be in line with previous Security Council resolutions. It also asks the chairman of the U.N. Special Commission overseeing the destruction of Iraqi weapons (UNSCOM), Richard Butler, to report on the procedures to inspect the eight presidential sites that are covered in the agreement negotiated and signed in Baghdad earlier in the week by Secretary General Kofi Annan and Iraqi officials, including President Saddam Hussein. "We will support a British effort which sends an unmistakable message to Iraq that they will pay if they don't comply with this agreement," Richardson told journalists before attending a private meeting of the council. "I think it is also important to express support for the secretary general's mission, but to make sure that Security Council resolution initiatives are followed, that the U.N. Security Council is the governing body (on relations with Iraq) and, most importantly, that there be free and unfettered access to all sites and the U.N. inspections teams stay strong," Richardson said. Richardson said that United States officials "feel that it makes sense to enforce the agreement." The proposed resolution, he continued, "is a way to enforce the agreement because it means that an unmistakable message is sent to Iraq by the U.N. Security Council saying that: you will pay, there will be serious consequences if you fail to live up to the agreement." "We think that's important," Richardson said. The U.N. said that legally, the secretary general can sign a memorandum of understanding with a nation or organization without any Security Council approval or resolution. However, the council's endorsement of the pact would be beneficial politically. At a briefing earlier in the day, U.N. legal counsel Hans Corell said the agreement was drafted in such a way as to "give the Security Council the full freedom to deal with the memorandum of understanding as they see fit." "The document was drafted as a memorandum of understanding and contains language normally used in internationally binding international documents," Corell said. Corell, who accompanied the secretary general to Baghdad and drafted the two-page agreement, said he would not give an opinion on whether the council should pass another resolution in order to set the stage for military strikes if Iraq does not honor the new agreement. "That issue is in the hands of the Security Council," he said. "Given the history of Iraq and U.N., I have no illusions the truth is in the testing," Corell also said. The "memorandum of understanding," which was signed by Annan and Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on February 23, reconfirms Iraq's acceptance of all Security Council resolutions, including the Gulf War cease-fire resolution (687); states Iraq's agreement to accord weapons inspectors "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to all sites; and sets up special procedures for investigating the presidential sites. According to the agreement, the secretary general is to establish, in consultation with UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler, a special group of senior diplomats and experts drawn from UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
