UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

17 October 2002

Security Council Must be Clear, Firm, Resolute to Iraq, U.S. Says

(Ambassador Negroponte's Security Council speech October 17) (1930)
United Nations -- Saying that the United States hopes the use of force
against Iraq will not be necessary, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte
emphasized October 17 that the Security Council is facing "a defining
moment" and must adopt a resolution that is firm, clear, and
unambiguous about what U.N. weapons inspectors must do.
Addressing a public meeting of the Security Council, Negroponte
presented the U.S. case for a tough resolution outlining what Iraq
must do to comply with the council's demand that it dismantle its
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs or face the
consequences. He urged the council to be "resolute and united."
"There can be no more 'business-as-usual' or toothless resolutions
that Iraq will continue to ignore," the ambassador said. "Our intent
is that the council meet the challenge, and stand firm, resolute, and
united in adopting a resolution that holds Iraq to its commitments,
that lays out clearly what Iraq must do to comply and which states
that there will be consequences if Iraq refuses to comply."
Negroponte said that the United States expects the council to act and
hopes that Iraq will choose to comply.
"If it does not, we will seek compliance and disarmament by other
means," he said.
Negroponte said that President Bush's September 12 speech to the
General Assembly listing the steps Iraq must take if it wishes peace
was "a declaration of purpose, not a declaration of war."
The ambassador spoke during a two-day debate during which more than 60
nations made presentations on how the council should proceed.
Negroponte said that the U.S. is considering the reactions it heard
and will be placing a resolution "with clear and immediate
requirements...that Iraq would voluntarily meet if it chooses to
cooperate" before the council in the near future.
Following is the text of the ambassador's remarks"
(begin text)
October 17, 2002
Statement by Ambassador John D. Negroponte, United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations, during the Security Council
Debate on Iraq, October 17, 2002
Mr. President:
On September 12, President George Bush outlined to the United Nations
General Assembly the history of Iraq's defiance of United Nations
Security Council Resolutions, listed the steps Iraq must take if it
wishes peace and stated that the United States would work with the
United Nations Security Council to hold Iraq to account.
This speech was a declaration of purpose, not a declaration of war. It
put the United Nations in the spotlight and it challenged the
international community to restore the Security Council's relevance on
this issue by confronting this threat to international peace and
security, and 11 years of failure by Iraq to accept the demands made
of it after its invasion and destruction of Kuwait.
The threat today is serious and unique and it arises directly from the
Iraqi regime's own actions - its history of aggression and brutality,
its defiance of the international community and its drive toward an
arsenal of terror and destruction. This is a regime that has invaded
two of its neighbors and tried to annihilate one of them; a regime
that has used chemical weapons on its neighbors and its very own
citizens; a regime that has lied about its development of weapons of
mass destruction; a regime that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty and then proceeded to develop a major nuclear weapons program.
Eleven years ago, as one of the conditions for ending the Persian Gulf
War, the Security Council required the Iraqi regime to destroy its
weapons of mass destruction and cease all development of such weapons.
As President Bush noted yesterday when signing the Congressional
resolution on Iraq, at the time, Iraq was given 15 days to fully
disclose its weapons of mass destruction - the Baghdad regime has
defied this obligation for 4199 days. The Security Council also
demanded, eleven years ago, that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait
and other lands and renounce all involvement with terrorism. Iraq
agreed to these demands, and more at the time and these are
commitments that Iraq must comply with. The Council has tried in every
way to bring Iraq to peaceful fulfillment of the Gulf War ceasefire,
yet the Iraqi regime has violated all of its obligations. As President
Bush said earlier this month in Cincinnati, "the entire world has
witnessed Iraq's eleven year history of defiance, deception and bad
faith."
And the Security Council is not the only international body that is
focused on the behavior of the Iraqi regime. Last year, a year when
the United States was not a member, the Commission on Human Rights
adopted a resolution strongly condemning, and I quote, the
"systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights
and international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq,
resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by
broad-based discrimination and widespread terror."
Today, exactly five weeks after the President spoke, we meet for the
first time to publicly discuss the message the Security Council will
send to Iraq and to its leader, Saddam Hussein. Our view of that
message has been clear from September 12. There can be no more
"business-as-usual" or toothless resolutions that Iraq will continue
to ignore. Our intent is that the Council meet the challenge, and
stand firm, resolute and united in adopting a resolution that holds
Iraq to its commitments, that lays out clearly what Iraq must do to
comply and which states that there will be consequences if Iraq
refuses to comply.
We expect the Council to act, and when the Council adopts a resolution
that sends a clear and united message to Iraq that it must fulfill its
obligations, Iraq will have a choice. It will have to decide whether
to take this last chance to comply. We hope that it will choose to
comply. If it does not, we will seek compliance and disarmament by
other means.
This is not an easy issue for any of us on the Council. The world's
united response to Iraqi aggression in 1990 and 1991, expressed
through a series of unique, groundbreaking Security Council
resolutions, brought the world body closest to the visions of its
founders. The Council's requirements were far reaching, commensurate
with both the threat and the Council's determination that Iraq never
again possess the means to threaten - even destroy - its neighbors. In
the ensuing decade, however, Iraq's failure to implement this body's
peace terms became for the United Nations a question of enormous
significance. The challenge now is whether the United Nations can
perform the function its founders envisaged? We very much hope the
answer will be "yes".
The five weeks since the President came to the UN to discuss the
threat posed by Iraq have passed quickly. We have seen signs of
emerging Council unity during intensive discussions here and in
capitals, involving the highest levels of our respective governments.
We have also seen clear signs that Iraq is reverting to form. We have
seen Iraq invite inspectors to return "without conditions", and then
immediately place conditions. We have seen requests for clarity from
UNMOVIC and IAEA on practical arrangements met by Iraqi obfuscation
and multiple answers, which in fact avoid answering at all.
Not surprisingly, in the first test of the so-called "new Iraqi
cooperation," Iraq has shown that they hope to return to the word
games, ephemeral commitments, and misdirection of the past, while
continuing to develop the world's deadliest weapons.
This is why a clear, firm message from this Council is so important.
Miscalculation by Iraq will be dangerous. This body, and indeed the
entire membership of the UN, do no favor to the people of Iraq, do no
favor to those who seek a better future for Iraq, do no favor to the
countries of the region and do no favor to the credibility of the
United Nations if they create the impression that an outcome in which
Iraq retains its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs is
an acceptable, or possible outcome.
Over the past five weeks, a consensus has been forming in the Security
Council that the time for denial, deception and delay has come to an
end, and that Iraq must be verifiably disarmed. There is growing
agreement that there must be immediate, unconditional and unrestricted
inspections of all Iraqi facilities that may have a role in the
development of weapons of mass destruction.
The United States, together with the United Kingdom, has shared with
the other members of the Council the elements of our vision of a
resolution that will address Iraq's material breach of its obligations
under relevant Security Council Resolutions, specify the types of
access and authorities that UNMOVIC and IAEA must have to be able to
effectively verify Iraqi disarmament, make clear Iraq's obligations
and articulate to Iraq that there will be consequences to
non-compliance.
The United States believes that the best way to ensure Iraqi
compliance is through one resolution that is firm and unambiguous in
its message.
We are considering the reactions we have received, and will be placing
before the Council, in the near future, a resolution with clear and
immediate requirements - requirements that Iraq would voluntarily meet
if it chooses to cooperate.
We have also shared these elements with the Executive Chairman of
UNMOVIC and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy
Agency. While they can and should speak for themselves, both Dr. Blix
and Dr. ElBaradei have made it clear that they would welcome a new
Security Council Resolution that strengthens their hands and allows
for more effective inspections.
While all this diplomatic activity has been taking place, in the
United States we have been having a great national debate. Last week,
the House of Representatives and the Senate passed a joint resolution
that expressed support for the administration's diplomatic efforts in
the Security Council to ensure that "Iraq abandons its strategy of
delay, evasion, and non-compliance" and authorized the use of United
States Armed Forces should diplomatic efforts fail. This resolution
tells the world that the United States speaks with one determined
voice. Yesterday, when President Bush signed this resolution, he said
that he has not ordered the use of force. The United States hopes that
the use of force will not become necessary. But the President also
said that the choice for Iraq is straightforward: "either the Iraqi
regime will give up its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake
of peace, the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm
that regime."
Now, the spotlight is back on the Security Council. We hope and expect
that the Security Council will act and play its proper role as
safeguard of our common security. If it fails to do so, then we and
other states will be forced to act.
The US/UK approach aims at clarity - clarity with respect to what Iraq
must now do to fulfill its 1991 obligations to restore peace and
security in the region; clarity with respect to what inspectors must
be allowed to do; and clarity with respect to our seriousness. Without
such clarity, there is too high a danger that Iraq will miscalculate.
And miscalculation by Iraq will lead to precisely the military action
we all hope to avoid. Mr. President, Colleagues, the Security Council
faces a defining moment. The Security Council works best on Iraq when
it works together. As we witnessed last spring with the successful
passage of Security Council Resolution 1409 and the establishment of
the Goods Review List, when the Security Council is resolute and
united, its actions produce results. We must stand together and show
Iraq that its failure to comply will no longer be tolerated.
Thank you.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list