U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1999
Briefer: JAMES B. FOLEY
IRAQ | |
5-6, 7 | Progress of UNSC discussions of Iraq Resolution / Pickering-Welch Talks |
6 | US Views of Iraqi Cooperation Toward UNSC Resolution / Oil-for-Food Program |
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #150
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1999, 1:20 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
.............
QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts - I know you spoke to this on Monday - what's the latest with the resolution in New York on Iraq? I think you said that you would expect a vote this week. I wonder if you could bring us up to date.
MR. FOLEY: Discussions among the Permanent Five members have made a good deal of progress in recent weeks, including discussions that Under Secretary Pickering and Assistant Secretary Welch had in New York yesterday. My understanding is that in an informal session the Security Council as a whole is taking this matter up today, even as we speak. I understand that the United Kingdom, which is the President of the Security Council, is taking the opportunity to brief the full Security Council on the status of the discussions that have taken place thus far among the Permanent Members of the Security Council.
I believe they're using this opportunity to discuss the text that exists now, which has been the result of the efforts of a number of countries, notably the UK and the Netherlands - also France has contributed and I believe there have been wider consultations that have informed the work that's led to this text. We believe that a Security Council vote on the omnibus draft is likely this week and we would like to see it adopted with the broadest possible support among Council members.
In terms of Ambassador Pickering's meeting yesterday, let me say that the United States remains committed to achieving broad support for this resolution, that while the meeting did not result in an elimination of the differences, indeed serious questions remain unresolved and the United States has some fundamental concerns about what the text should reflect that we believe are critical and that cannot be whittled away; nevertheless, there are areas that we can discuss and we remain committed to continuing to discuss the text with Russia and with others. We believe that a vote should take place soon, in other words, this week, and we are going to continue our efforts to achieve, as I said, the broadest possible support for the resolution to be voted upon.
QUESTION: Any resolution needs the cooperation of Iraq to be implemented. Now Iraq has stated once, twice and lately not anything less than the suspension or the lifting of the sanctions is acceptable to them. How does the United States work forward from there if Iraq is not willing to accept anything less than lifting or suspension of the sanctions?
MR. FOLEY: First, that's not a new position on Iraq's part. It's not even a new position this year. In other words, in conjunction with this omnibus resolution, it's basically been Iraq's position for many years and it certainly is borne out by Iraq's refusal to cooperate fully with the inspectors under UNSCOM that were doing good work in previous years. So that's not new.
What our focus on at the moment is not Iraq. It's the Security Council. It's the effort to reconstitute consensus within the Security Council on the basis not of concessions to Iraq's desire to avoid complying with its disarmament requirements but, rather, consensus on the basis of an assertion, a reassertion, of the requirements of Iraqi compliance.
I would note, however, that the omnibus resolution also envisages significant enhancements to the Oil for Food Program. It is certainly in the interests of the people of Iraq that this resolution be passed and that it be fully implemented but, as you know, Iraq has chosen to exploit the plight of its people in order to seek a suspension or a lifting of sanctions without having completed the disarmament tasks.
So we'll have to confront the issue of Iraqi views once this matter has been addressed in the Security Council. We believe that - in the first instance - it's certainly very beneficial if we're able to reestablish as broad a consensus as possible within the Security Council.
QUESTION: If you're trying to establish consensus within the Security Council, why are you so keen to rush ahead with a vote when - even at the risk that you won't get consensus in the Security Council and that some members will not vote in favor of a resolution? Why - which presumably will be divisive - why this hurry? Why don't you keep talking?
MR. FOLEY: First of all, I don't share your prognosis, which seems to write off the possibility that we won't achieve a very broad consensus in the Security Council. Obviously, it's been very arduous, the diplomatic work that's been going on, and we can't predict the outcome at this point. But I wouldn't, therefore, predict any particular outcome including the negative one that you're suggesting.
But we also believe that there has to be end to this process, that there comes a point when further diplomatic effort is pointless. We have not reached that point yet. We are endeavoring mightily to try to achieve consensus and we believe that it's time, nevertheless, though to come to a conclusion. Therefore, we believe that a vote will be necessary before or by the end of the week.
QUESTION: Do you expect Pickering and Welch to go back up again?
MR. FOLEY: I wouldn't rule it out. I don't have a specific plan on their part. But certainly, we're willing to go the extra mile to try to achieve agreement and the broadest consensus possible. As I indicated, the meeting with the Russians yesterday was not dispositive. It didn't produce agreement. Nevertheless, there are areas that we can continue to discuss with the Russians, and Secretary Albright is engaged and committed to working with her counterparts to achieve a positive resolution. We are Wednesday today, and we have still a number of days left and we are going to redouble our efforts to achieve consensus.
QUESTION: Also on Iraq, you were asked yesterday about the apparent importation by the Iraqis of devices capable of producing atomic blasts?
MR. FOLEY: We're looking into that still. That was, of course, on Monday that the question was asked. I asked late yesterday whether we had gotten an answer yet. Apparently, this involved events that occurred some time and we have to look into the records and the work of the Sanctions Committee. I'm on the line to get you an answer. I understand, hopefully, I'll have that when we brief again on Friday.
............. .......
(The briefing concluded at 2:00 P.M.)
[end of document]
NEWSLETTER
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|