• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

24 April 2003

U.S. Diplomats Object to Annan Statements on Iraq

(Kirkpatrick, Moley meet with press in Geneva) (3750)
Senior U.S. Diplomats in Geneva have objected to statements by U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan that the Coalition pursued the war in
Iraq "without specific authorization by the Security Council" and that
this was the source of "deep divisions."
Ambassador Kevin E. Moley, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the
United Nations in Geneva, called the Secretary General's statements to
the Commission on Human Rights April 24 "an egregious misstatement of
the facts of our going to war in Iraq."
"The Secretary General more than any single person should know that
there is specific authorization, specifically Security Council
resolutions 678, 687 and 1441," Moley said, speaking with journalists
just outside the commission following Annan's speech.
In his address to the commission, Annan said, "The decision to go to
war without specific authorization by the Security Council has created
deep divisions that will need to be bridged if we are to deal
effectively, not just with the aftermath in Iraq, but with other major
challenges on the international arena."
Ambassador Jeane J. Kirpatrick, the head of the U.S. delegation to
this year's session of the commission, pointed out that it has been
the position of both the United States and the secretary general that
the first Gulf War ended with a conditional cease-fire and "Iraq has
not ever fulfilled those terms of the cease-fire."
She added that "deep divisions" were created by the French "when they
announced that they would veto any resolution that was passed by the
Security Council that dealt with the question of use of force in Iraq
at that time."
"The French President, Jacques Chirac, reiterated this view several
times and effectively ended the use of the Security Council as an
arena for negotiating some kind of settlement to that conflict," she
added.
Kirkpatrick described Annan's statements as "very inaccurate, not
consistent with the views the Secretary General has himself expressed
on other occasions, and not an accurate description of what actually
transpired. I think it is very objectionable."
In his speech, Annan also urged the Iraq coalition to "set an example
by making clear that they intend to act strictly within the rules set
down by the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations regarding the
treatment of prisoners of war, and by demonstrating through their
actions that they accept the responsibilities of the occupying power
for public order and safety, and the well-being of the civilian
population."
Ambassador Moley said that there "should be no question in the mind of
the Secretary General " that the United States is in conformance with
the Geneva Conventions."
"We have not only made that clear by our words, more importantly we
have made that clear from day one of this conflict through our
actions. Quite frankly we find it odd at best that the Secretary
General would feel that he had to bring this to our attention," he
said.
Speaking on the next to last day of the commission's 2003 session, the
two ambassadors said the United States shares the view expressed by
the secretary general in his speech that the Commission on Human
Rights needs to be strengthened.
Kirpatrick said the United States had predicted from the outset that
it could not be entirely satisfied with this year's outcome since
"there are so many countries who are members of the Human Rights
Commission who are not themselves serious practitioners of respect for
human rights in their countries."
Moley noted that many governments seek seats on the commission only as
a way to protect themselves from criticism of the "deplorable" human
rights situations in their own countries.
"I will specifically name Zimbabwe and Libya, Sudan and others in that
category. And we have heard that North Korea is intending to be a
candidate in May to become a member, which would be, as in the case of
Zimbabwe, another outrage to the conditions of human rights around the
world," he said.
Following is a transcript of Kirkpatrick's and Moley's remarks to the
press:
(begin transcript)
Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick
Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights
and
Ambassador Kevin E. Moley
Permanent Representative to the United Nations and other International
Organizations in Geneva
Respond to questions from the Press outside the Commission on Human
Rights
Palais des Nations
Geneva
April 24, 2003
AMBASSADOR MOLEY: We want to give you the U.S. reaction to Secretary
General Annan's speech and there are a couple of things that we want
to specifically comment upon. In the third paragraph of the speech
which I think you all have a copy of there is a comment or a statement
by the Secretary General "I hope the Coalition will set an example by
making clear that they intend to act strictly within the rules set
down by the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations regarding the
treatment of prisoners of war." We have not only made that clear by
our words, more importantly we have made that clear from day one of
this conflict through our actions, and quite frankly we find it odd at
best that the Secretary General would feel that he had to bring this
to our attention.
Secondly, and I'm sure that Ambassador Kirkpatrick is going to want to
comment as well. The fourth paragraph begins: "The decision to go to
war without specific authorization by the Security Council,"- and I'll
repeat -- "The decision to go to war without specific authorization by
the Security Council." The Secretary General more than any single
person should know that there is specific authorization. Specifically
Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. And so this is an
egregious misstatement of the facts of our going to war in Iraq. And
Ambassador Kirkpatrick I'm sure may want to comment as well.
AMBASSADOR KIRKPATRICK: Yes, I do want to comment. I want to say that
it is a misstatement, quite simply, as the Secretary General obviously
knows. The Secretary General knows resolutions 678 and 687 and 1441.
687 contains the terms of the cease-fire which was negotiated at the
interruption of the first Gulf War. And he is perfectly aware of the
fact that Iraq has not ever fulfilled those terms of the cease-fire.
The cease-fire was a conditional cease-fire. It has been the position
of the United States from the beginning and it has been the position
of the Secretary General as a matter of record that Iraq never
fulfilled the terms of that cease-fire. And on an earlier occasion
when someone raised a question about the legitimacy of the U.S. and
the UK using force to protect the Iraqi Kurds by over-flights, the
Secretary General himself said it was authorized under resolution 687.
Of course President George W. Bush affirmed this again during his
initial presentation before the Security Council. The Security Council
responded to that presentation by unanimously adopting resolution
1441, which described the material breach in which Iraq was engaged.
So it is a serious mistake on the part of the Secretary General. One
can only assume that he had reasons for doing it. He didn't just say
that, he said the decision to go to war without specific authorization
by the security council "has created deep divisions that will need to
be bridged if we are to deal effectively not just with the aftermath
in Iraq but with other major challenges."
It is of course the U.S. position -- and my personal position -- that
the French created deep divisions when they announced that they would
veto any resolution which was passed by the Security Council that
dealt with the question of use of force in Iraq at that time. The
French President Jacques Chirac reiterated this view several times,
and effectively ended the use of the Security Council as an arena for
negotiating some kind of settlement to that conflict.
So I think this is very inaccurate and not consistent with views that
the Secretary General himself has expressed on other occasions and not
an accurate description of what actually transpired. I think this is
very objectionable.
QUESTION: May I ask, why do you think the Secretary General said this
and will there be any sort of repercussions by the United States
against the United Nations. The U.S. is not particularly happy with
the U.N. role in this whole issue.
MOLEY: I would simply say that we are here to set the record straight
in terms of the comments made by the Secretary General this morning
here at the Human Rights Commission and any other reactions in respect
to this would come from the White House or the State Department in
Washington.
QUESTION: We have heard that perhaps the resolution on Iraq could be
considered today. Will that take place, will there be any
consideration?
MOLEY: I don't believe that will be considered until tomorrow. Under
the 24 hour rule which I believe was imposed and you will correct me
if this isn't the case, but I believe that the 24-hour rule would not
permit it to be taken up until tomorrow.
QUESTION: What is the reason for the United States to try to limit the
mandate of the special representative to just the crimes under Saddam
Hussein and not any others that might have occurred since?
MOLEY: Well, I don't think that is quite accurate. We are not in fact
delimiting the mandate from the original resolution. And it is clear,
common sense would tell you, that crimes of the regime that has been
replaced were the crimes that have been the subject of the rapporteur.
Even though this is the U.N. we must at times at least retain some
degree of logic in our deliberations.
QUESTION: But does the U.S. see any need for a special investigator
given that Human Rights Watch is presently in Iraq trying to secure
what they say are mass grave sites so that forensic experts can get in
there and investigate. They would like to see human rights monitors on
the ground to try and preserve some of the stuff and do a thorough
investigation. Does the U.S. see any role for such human rights
monitors?
MOLEY: I think that is a subject for on-going discussion. I don't
think we are in the position at the moment to make that decision here.
KIRKPATRICK: I think that the United States has a very large interest
in having the evidence concerning the crimes against humanity of the
Saddam Hussein regime preserved and investigated.
QUESTION: Will you vote for this resolution?
KIRKPATRICK: We don't have the final form of the resolution, so we
can't comment on whether we are willing to vote on something we
haven't seen in the final form.
MOLEY: We are in discussions with the EU and hopefully it will come to
a successful conclusion as well as with others and we would hope that
that would enable us to do so, but as the Ambassador has just said, it
is not fully cooked yet.
QUESTION: You said earlier that you have made it clear from day one
that you would respect the Geneva Conventions, the Hague etc, but a
couple of weeks ago when (NAME INAUDIBLE) was asked questions at
Central Command in Doha about the issue of occupying power, the
response was, well we are not at that stage yet, it's a liberating
force.
MOLEY: You have mixed metaphors there. You asked me about the Geneva
Convention and the Hague and I would reply as I did earlier, we have
been fully, fully in conformity and intend to be since day one, not
only by virtue of our words, but by virtue of our actions on the
ground that demonstrate that.
QUESTION: So there is no separate occupying or liberating force
category?
MOLEY: We are simply saying that the issue of an occupying power has
not yet been dealt with. Once again the situation is still quite
fluid. We will come to that, and presumably come to it quickly. But
there should be no question -- certainly no question in the mind of
the Secretary General -- that we need to make any clearer than we
already have, and have been on the record repeatedly as being in
conformance and wanting to be in conformance in every way with the
Geneva Conventions.
QUESTION: I am just curious, can I ask you something generally about
the Human Rights Commission? How has the U.S. viewed this year's
session, because we have seen some countries escape censure, and at
least human rights groups are quite upset about Zimbabwe and Sudan?
KIRKPATRICK: I'd like to say something about that if I may, speaking
of human rights groups. I was very shocked this year to learn that
Human Rights Watch has never occupied itself with Zimbabwe which is
surely one of the deep broad problems in human rights violations in
our times. And I mention this to suggest that it is often the case
that serious persons and groups skip some and focus on others. Part of
the reason for that is that there a good many serious human rights
violations in the contemporary world and even very serious people
often do not divide their time equally. We try to cover all the
serious human rights violations in our discussions and our decisions
and we did indeed address a good many of them this year.
MOLEY: In our State Department reports put out annually we do, country
by country, an evaluation of their human rights conditions, so we take
this very seriously. But let me say something that Ambassador
Kirkpatrick can't say and that is that our commitment to human rights
should be demonstrated by the fact that the President chose to name
one of our most distinguished diplomats and scholars Ambassador
Kirkpatrick to be the head of our delegation here signaling our
commitment as we return to the Human Rights Commission -- as you know
we were not on the Commission last year -- so we have learned a few
things and no doubt we will be looking at ways to improve the
performance of this Commission in concert with other serious minded
countries that are on the Commission. But there are a lot of countries
on the Commission who are only on the Commission to protect themselves
by virtue of their own egregious deplorable human rights situations in
their countries. And I will specifically name Zimbabwe and Libya and
Sudan and others in that category. And we have heard that North Korea
is intending to be a candidate next month in May to become a member,
which would be, as in the case of Zimbabwe, another outrage to the
conditions of human rights around the world.
QUESTION: What about China? China has slipped through the cracks
because some groups have said that the U.S. just hasn't put the
pressure to bring China up this year. Is that because the U.S. needs
China for North Korea in the negotiations?
MOLEY: Let me say that there is no linkage in effect there. Certainly
one looks at China's position on the Security Council on other issues
that have been of importance to the United States in recent times
including Iraq and one would be hard put to suggest that there was any
linkage. The fact of the matter is, in China's case, as is reported in
our State Department's own country by country report, there are
serious human rights violations taking place in China. There has been
an on-going dialogue however between very high level State Department
officials who are fully engaged with China. And there has been some
progress. Not as much as we would like. We would like to see more. One
of the interesting things and I commented on this the other day, with
respect to the recent outbreak of SARS, we have seen just in recent
days a change of position by the new government, and there is a new
government in Beijing, headed by Hu Jintao, which has declared that
they must be absolutely open. We hope that this kind of transparency
will translate into further progress on the human rights front.
QUESTION: The Secretary General in his speech did seem to indicate and
criticize I believe the Human Rights Commission for being weak and
that it should be stronger. How do you react to that?
MOLEY: Well I would add our voice to that of the Secretary General and
in fact the High Commissioner Sergio Viera de Mello who in an article
in the Wall Street Journal on April 22 himself decried the fact that
the Human Rights Commission did not seem to be taking the issue of
human rights serious, and I am paraphrasing, you will have to go to
his own remarks for a direct quote. But he was very, very critical of
the performance.
KIRKPATRICK: I must say that we also addressed this issue and
predicted that we would be unhappy with the final outcome across the
board because there are so many countries who are members of the Human
Right Commission who are not themselves serious practitioners of
respect for human rights in their own countries and their own
policies. That was a major emphasis in the first speech that I
delivered here, the U.S. opening speech at the Human Rights
Commission.
QUESTION: Some NGOs are accusing the United States of not having any
leadership this year and of, after your absence last year, failing to
pass resolutions not only on China but to have been more proactive as
far as Chechnya is concerned.
KIRKPATRICK: I want to say something about that too. Anyone who
imagines that the United States is not being proactive when we do not
ourselves sponsor a resolution is making a mistake. It is often the
case inside the United Nations, not only on Human Rights issues, but
on many issues, that it is more effective to cooperate with other
countries and to sometimes let them take the lead. Sometimes it is
better for them to take the lead, sometimes it is better for us to
take the lead. We have to make judgments about that issue by issue and
year by year. But I think it is a mistake to imagine that because we
didn't take the lead on the resolution that we did not act. We were,
for example, very active on Sudan. And we did not take the lead. We
ended as one of the sponsors of the resolution. And we worked actively
on it. So don't fall for that line. That is just not an accurate way
to judge.
MOLEY: And we did take the lead in some cases that were unique to us
in our position on the Commission. Belarus is an example. We are not
saying our performance has been perfect either, but the fact is we are
back on. We have made a serious commitment and we worked hard and we
are going to work hard next year as well.
QUESTION: I am just curious. I see that Sudan today is asking the U.S.
to be removed from the list of terrorist countries. I don't know if
you can comment on whether the White House...
KIRKPATRICK: The list of terrorist countries is, you know, it does not
depend on what a nation requests. There would not be a list of states
sponsoring terrorism if it depended on the requests of the governments
concerned. I think the United States would like very much to see the
government of Sudan improve its behavior. We would like to see it
improve its behavior in a number of domains. And so far we have not
felt that it has done so. I would repeat, if you want to know the U.S.
position on a given country, the best thing to do is to go to our
human rights country reports. They are serious, they are good, and
they are up-to-date. They are revised on an annual basis. So look
there.
QUESTION: Could I just ask you one question, it may be a little out of
the range, but there has been a lot of criticism of the United States
in terms of the deterioration of human rights law, international law
specifically, with Guantanamo Bay and so forth, and the...
MOLEY: We don't accept that characterization at all, not at all.
QUESTION: The question is that the U.S. has always been held up as a
model of the rule of law and propriety and has been an encouragement
to smaller states to follow this model and there is a feeling that
there is an erosion of that by the behavior of the United States.
KIRKPATRICK: I think that that is a misplaced feeling. It is a feeling
and not an informed opinion. I know one thing. I know the prisoners in
Guantanamo are being treated under the laws of combatants. And that is
quite different from the Geneva Conventions. They were arrested in the
course of seeking to kill Americans in an ongoing war.
MOLEY: Specifically I would suggest that if someone thinks we should
be treating them differently they would in fact be making up law or
misapplying the law. The fact of the matter is that these are illegal
combatants, unlawful combatants. And they are being treated as such.
If someone wants them treated otherwise they are in fact misapplying
the law. And so I would suggest that the fact is that we are in
compliance in the strictest sense with humanitarian law, with the law
of war, and accept our responsibilities as such. As a consequence we
remain the model. We are not without fault, but we are the model.
KIRKPATRICK: I'd like to make a point because of the role in the Human
Rights Commission of Cuba. You know Cuba does not permit the Red Cross
or any other objective international group to visit prisoners in its
prisons. The United States on the other hand gives the Red Cross broad
access to the prisoners that we hold in Guantanamo. There is only one
part of Cuba that there is any access for an international
humanitarian agency, and that is Guantanamo Bay and the prisoners held
there.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)