17 December 1998
TEXT: AMBASSADOR BURLEIGH'S SECURITY COUNCIL REMARKS DEC. 16
(Attack a "necessary, proportionate response to Iraq) (1630) United Nations -- "Iraq bears full responsibility for the consequences of this military operation," US Ambassador Peter Burleigh told the UN Security Council December 16 explaining the military air strikes underway by the United States and Great Britain in response to Iraq's continued refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. "Iraq's policy of unremitting defiance and non-compliance necessitated the resort to military force. The United States did not seek a confrontation and did not undertake this decision lightly," Burleigh said. The US Ambassador to the UN described the military action as "substantial" and as an attack on "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and its ability to threaten its neighbors." Addressing an open meeting of the Council just hours after the attacks began, Burleigh also pointed out that the coalition forces "exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (in 1991) for member states to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area." British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock added that resolution 1205 adopted on October 31 "implicitly revived the authorization to use force" given in resolution 687, which set out the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement. For the safety and stability of the region and the world Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to keep and develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, Greenstock said. "If he will not, through reason and diplomacy, abandon his weapons of mass destruction program, it must be degraded and diminished by military force." Russia asked for the open late night meeting. The military strikes began earlier in the day as the Council deliberated privately on the report issued December 15 by the chairman of the UN Special Commission in Iraq (UNSCOM) overseeing the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq saying that Iraq was once again blocking UN inspections and UNSCOM was unable to do its job. No resolution or formal statement was proposed. However, the positions presented by other Council members ranged from Japan's outright support for the military strikes to Russia's condemnation and a call for an immediate end to the strikes. Most Council members blamed Iraq's destructive behavior, especially Baghdad's failure to heed the repeated warnings of dire consequences during the past year, for the air strikes. Sweden, critical of the US and UK for taking the decision unilaterally, said that it would have voted in the Council for military action. Burleigh said that "the coalition now looks to the highest level of the Iraqi leadership for an immediate demonstration of unconditional compliance with the terms of the Security Council resolutions." Following is the US/UN text: (begin text) UNITED STATES MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS Statement by Ambassador A. Peter Burleigh, Charge d'Affaires a.i. of the United States Mission to the United Nations, on Iraq, in the Security Council, December 16, 1998 Mr. President, Colleagues: Coalition forces today began operations against military targets in Iraq. Our ongoing military action is substantial. We are attacking Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and its ability to threaten its neighbors. Coalition forces are acting under the authority provided by resolutions of the Security Council. This action is a necessary and proportionate response to the continued refusal of the Iraqi Government to comply with the resolutions of the Security Council and the threat to international peace and security which Iraq's non-compliance represents. In carrying out this action our forces have taken appropriate measures to defend themselves from any interference by Iraq, and have made every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage. As the Council is well aware, this resort to military force was undertaken only when it became evident that diplomacy had been exhausted. The coalition acted out of necessity, and the government of Iraq bears full responsibility for the consequences of this military operation. We did not act precipitately. On the contrary, the United States has worked with its partners in the Security Council over the past months in a sincere and sustained effort to bring about a peaceful resolution of the confrontation created by Iraq. For reasons best known to Saddam Hussein, Iraq chose to reject that effort. Following the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation in 1991, Security Council resolution 687 (1991) mandated a ceasefire; but it also imposed a number of essential conditions on Iraq, including the destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and acceptance by Iraq of U.N. inspections. In its resolutions -- including, in addition to resolution 687, resolutions 707 (1991), 715 (1991), 1154 (1998), 1194 (1998), 1205 (1998) and others -- the Council has elaborated and reiterated those conditions, including "full, final and complete disclosure" of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, and "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" for the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "to any and all areas facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect." Iraqi compliance with all these requirements is a fundamental element of international peace and security in the region. Nevertheless, Iraq has repeatedly taken actions which constitute flagrant, material breaches of these provisions. On a number of occasions the Council has affirmed that similar Iraqi actions constituted such breaches, as well as a threat to international peace and security. In our view, the Council need not state these conclusions on each occasion. Just one month ago, on November 14, the government of Iraq committed to provide full and unconditional cooperation with UNSCOM as required by the resolutions. The Iraqi government described it as a "clear and unconditional decision by the Iraqi Government to resume cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA." Iraq stated that the weapons inspectors could "immediately resume all their activities according to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council." It must be noted that Iraq rescinded its restrictions on UNSCOM and the IAEA and offered those assurances only in the face of a credible threat of force. Military force was not employed at that time, however, because the United States, along with other members of the Security Council, sought a peaceful resolution to the situation created by Iraq and opted to go the extra mile to test Iraqi intentions. In that event, Iraq failed to fulfill its assurances. As the December 15 UNSCOM report makes clear, Iraq failed to provide the full cooperation it promised on November 14 and thus left UNSCOM unable to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council. By refusing to make available documents and information requested by UNSCOM within the scope of its mandate, by imposing new restrictions on the weapons inspectors, and by repeatedly denying access to facilities which UNSCOM wished to inspect, Iraq, once again, acted in flagrant and material breach of resolution 687. Iraq fully understood that its actions would be reported accurately to the Security Council. Indeed, the Iraqi government did not even wait for the Special Commission's report before presenting its own skewed interpretation of events to the Security Council, because the Iraqi leadership understood that the report of the Special Commission would be factual. Following Iraq's repeated, flagrant and material breaches of its obligations under resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1154, 1194, 1205 and others -- in addition to its failure to fulfill its own commitments -- the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for member states to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area. Any Iraqi attempt to attack coalition forces or to initiate aggressive action against a neighboring state will be met with a swift response by the coalition. As President Clinton stated this evening, if we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam Hussein more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. Also the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and therefore damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. President Clinton also stressed that the decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. Secretary Albright emphasized this evening that our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. On the contrary, we recognize that Iraqis have been the primary victims of Saddam Hussein's failure to cooperate internationally and his reign of terror domestically. The United States took the lead in establishing a U.N. program to meet the humanitarian needs of Iraqi civilians and supported the expansion of that program earlier this year. The Secretary of State stressed that in carrying out military action we will do all we can to minimize civilian casualties. And we will support Iraqis who are working for the day when the people of their country will be free to choose their own leaders and shape their own destiny. Iraq's policy of unremitting defiance and non-compliance necessitated the resort to military force. The United States did not seek a confrontation and did not undertake this decision lightly. The coalition now looks to the highest level of the Iraqi leadership for an immediate demonstration of unconditional compliance with the terms of the Security Council resolutions. Thank you, Mr. President. (end text)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
