US Compromises at UN but Leaves Room to Attack Iraq
1 hour, 25 minutes ago
URL: story.news.yahoo.com
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States has offered a compromise U.N. resolution that drops explicit authorization to use force against Iraq but still provides some international legal cover to attack Baghdad, according to excerpts from the U.S. draft.
Although U.S. officials stressed again on Friday they could strike Iraq at any time in self-defense and without U.N. approval, even close ally Britain would have second thoughts about joining a military action without some kind of new United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council resolution.
Almost every nation in the world expressed apprehension about a war in the Middle East in speeches before U.N. Security Council members on Wednesday and Thursday.
Most advocated that U.N. arms inspectors return to Baghdad to search for weapons of mass destruction and that any use of force has to be authorized by the 15-member council.
But Western nations admitted that Iraq would not have agreed to readmit the U.N. inspectors, after a four-year hiatus, without Washington's military threat.
Even Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said on Friday that Moscow would support the use of force if a decision were made by the United Nations.
Bowing to worldwide criticism, the Bush administration deleted from its revised text a key provision that automatically authorized a U.N. member, like the United States, to use "all necessary means" whenever it decided Iraq had violated U.N. disarmament demands.
Instead, the new U.S. proposals would call on U.N. weapons inspectors, searching for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, to report to the Security Council any violations by Baghdad, which could delay any military strike Washington has in mind.
The 15-member body would then meet to consider action.
FRANCE HESITATES
But should the council not authorize force, the United States could point to provisions in its new proposals that warn Iraq of "serious consequences" and state that Baghdad has been in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions.
For this reason France, which had welcomed the American compromise, hesitated on Friday in approving a U.S. draft resolution before it saw the full text. Diplomats said Paris feared that Washington and London were trying to insert a trigger for military action through the back door.
"The French were ready to go on Thursday but now they are considering new bits of the text," a council diplomat said.
The United States, France, Britain, Russia and China are permanent Security Council members with veto power.
France wants two resolutions, one to lay down demands for Iraqi disarmament, and a second to authorize force, if needed.
The new U.S. proposals open the door to a second vote. But U.S. officials, wary of giving the United Nations a veto over their conduct, insist no second resolution was necessary.
"We believe one resolution is appropriate, and obviously the council can always go off and have other discussions at any time it chooses," Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said.
He also said Washington had the right to attack Iraq now on grounds of self-defense and build its own coalition, although diplomats believe support is questionable.
Few legal experts, outside of the United States, agree that the U.N. Charter covers Washington's right to self-defense in this case. Therefore, analysts say, Washington has pushed for at least one resolution in the U.N. Security Council that would cover a future attack against Iraq.
David Malone, director of the International Peace Academy and a former Canadian deputy U.N. ambassador, said the United States made U.N. arms inspections the center of its new draft to get political support before and after any attack.
"Washington has reluctantly decided to play the inspector game because it does need friends and allies -- not so much for a military attack but the reconstruction of a united Iraq following any military action," he said.
The U.N. inspectors left Baghdad in December 1998. Iraq, until the recent threats from the Bush administration, had refused to allow them to return. |
