12 March 2003
Britain Proposes Iraqi Disarmament Benchmarks
(Negroponte: U.S. supports proposal as a way to gather support) (1050) By Judy Aita Washington File United Nations Correspondent United Nations -- The United Kingdom March 12 proposed to the Security Council a series of benchmarks for Iraq to meet that would demonstrate full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. The six specific actions Baghdad must take could become part the resolution originally proposed by United Kingdom, United States and Spain giving Saddam Hussein the deadline of March 17 to come into compliance with council resolutions. It was offered as a way to gain majority council support for the draft resolution. The co-sponsors of the draft resolution said that they will not call for a vote March 13 and will continue working on the resolution on a day-by-day basis if the new proposal gains acceptance. U.K. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said that a "non-paper" he presented was an attempt "to set out an exemplary set of tests for the leadership of Iraq" and give "greater clarity" to the draft resolution. The proposal, he said, is "a trial balloon ... to see if this is a way out of our current difficulties." "We have said you must consult your capitals on this and then return for further discussion on whether this is a package worth taking up because there is traction in the view of the majority of the members of the council," Greenstock said. "If the proposal gains traction, if this is considered by enough members of the council to be a catalytic force, then the co-sponsors would be prepared to drop paragraph three ... the one which sets what is often called an ultimatum," the ambassador said. Greenstock said he received an "immediately warm response from the six members of the council who want to find a way through." U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said that the fact that the United Kingdom presented the proposal alone did not signify any differences among the co-sponsors. "We agreed, concurred, in the submission of this proposal to the council today with our U.K. colleagues and we commended it to the consideration of the other delegations and their capitals," Negroponte told journalists after the council meeting. "We concurred in the submission of this proposal, but it is a non-paper and before we embrace it in its entirety we want to see how other council members feel about it," the U.S. ambassador said. "If they reject it out of hand or they don't accept it or they don't think it is a useful avenue to pursue, we are not going to alter the resolution that we currently have before the council." "The whole idea of our discussion and the discussion tomorrow is to see if that proposal ... gains any traction with other members of the Security Council," he said. "Our focus is to continue our efforts to try and find a way of rallying sufficient support for our approach within the Security Council." "I want to thank my colleague from the United Kingdom for his unstinting efforts to mobilize the broadest possible support for our draft resolution," Negroponte said. But Negroponte was firm in his position to get a new resolution on Iraq. "Iraq has been and continues to be in material breach of its obligations," he said. "Since the passage of [Security Council Resolution] 1441, because of numerous omissions in the Iraqi declaration and repeated violations, we believe Iraq to be in further material breach. That is why on February 24 our three countries -- the United States, United Kingdom and Spain -- tabled a resolution saying Iraq had failed to take advantage of its final opportunity." "Now we believe the time has come for the Security Council to fulfill its obligations and enforce its resolutions. Iraq must come into compliance immediately and without delay," Negroponte said. "Let me be clear. Our resolution is still the only resolution on the table and we have not backed away from the March 17 deadline. This [U.K.] proposal should be considered carefully," the ambassador said. "If there is some traction and if the council starts to coalesce around that approach then an option available to us is a modest extension -- a very, very brief extension, indeed -- of that deadline," Negroponte said, adding that he would not discuss how long the extension could be. The British benchmarks call for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to make a public statement in Arabic, broadcast on television and radio in Iraq and in the government-controlled media, saying that in the past Iraq has sought to conceal its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and other banned activities but has now taken the strategic decision not to produce or retain such weapons and will turn over all such weapons and related documents to the U.N. weapons inspectors for destruction. It is the duty of all Iraqi government personnel and citizens, the president also must say in the broadcast, to immediately cease activities on WMD and cooperate with the weapons inspectors, according to the proposal. Iraq must also: -- allow at least 30 scientists selected by the U.N. weapons inspectors to be interviewed outside Iraq along with their families; -- surrender all remaining anthrax and related growth media and related weapons/dispersal mechanisms as well as provide credible evidence on whether anthrax was produced in 1991 and on efforts to dry biological weapons agents; -- destroy all Al Samoud 2 missiles and components; -- account for unmanned aerial vehicles and remote piloted vehicles, including details of all tests, range capabilities, payloads and chemical and biological weapons spray devices; and -- surrender all mobile chemical and/or biological production facilities for destruction and provide a complete accounting of the facilities' production programs. "The United Kingdom reserves its position if Iraq fails to take the steps required of it," the proposal said. Asked what will happen if Russia, France and China, which hold veto power on the council remain opposed to the changes, Greenstock answered "then (they are) not interested and the ship goes down." Russian and French delegates said that they reject the proposal, that it does not differ from the ultimatum in the current draft resolution. (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
