Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Huang who wrote (1667)	1/16/2003 11:04:18 PM
From: Ed Huang	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

US Unable to Change Inspection Timetables on Iraq Thu January 16, 2003 06:15 PM ET By Evelyn Leopold UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States was unable to convince U.N. Security Council members on Thursday to change reporting deadlines for U.N. arms inspectors that Washington fears might delay any confrontation with Iraq, diplomats said. After realizing there was little support for its views, the United States apparently backed off insisting on any changes and appealed for council unity, the envoys said. U.S. officials said they wanted to stress that a Nov. 8 resolution on inspections took precedence over one in 1999. The 1999 measure requires chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix to explain in late March "key remaining issues" Iraq still has to fulfill. "We do have some questions whether March 27 is the right time to outline the key remaining disarmament tasks," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte told reporters. He said no decision was made but everyone agreed to keep "the pressure on Iraq to cooperate immediately, unconditionally and proactively with the inspection regime." Underlying the controversy was the Bush administration's plan to make a decision on whether to attack Iraq within a month or so, hopefully with Security Council support, and not be detracted by resolutions that could possibly extend the inspection process, diplomats said. At issue is that the inspectors are operating under two resolutions with two different dates for reports that imply continued inspections in Iraq. The first is a 1999 resolution, no. 1284 that requires Blix to report on March 27 on a list of "key remaining disarmament tasks" Iraq has to fulfill and gives several timetables for inspections. The second is the Nov. 8 resolution 1441, which gives Iraq one more chance to disarm or face "serious consequences" and requires an inspection report on Jan. 27. NO REASON FOR ISSUE 'TO DIVIDE US' France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, told the council the two resolutions were not mutually exclusive, according to his speaking notes. "There is no reason for this issue to divide us," he said. "Insofar as the council has not decided otherwise, we must abide by the resolutions in force." British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, as well as other council members, said the resolutions from 1999 and last November were valid and complemented each other. "The two resolutions both had their jobs to do," he said." But he said the "intensity" lay with the Nov. 8 resolution 1441. "It is up to the inspectors to judge the calibration of the two resolutions." Greenstock said Blix would continue reporting under the 1999 resolution, which created his inspection commission, although diplomats said it probably would have little impact on how the council reacted to Iraq. Negroponte declined to be drawn into any timelines the Bush administration may be contemplating, saying it was necessary to see what the inspectors said on Jan. 27, the next key date for a report to the Security Council. Negroponte said he told council members the United States wanted to make sure "no impression be left with Iraq that somehow we are slipping back into business as usual." The 1999 resolution also outlines steps toward lifting 12-year-old U.N. sanctions against Iraq, but there is little chance the embargoes would be eased. Blix told reporters on Wednesday he was abiding by both resolutions unless the council changed instructions. President Bush is expected to make a strong case for action against Iraq in his State of the Union message on Jan. 28. A day later, the U.N. Security Council discusses Blix's Jan. 27 report. On Jan. 31, British Prime Minister Tony Blair goes to Camp David for further talks on Iraq. With some administration officials making a case for an attack in February or March before temperatures in the Middle East rise, many diplomats fear Washington will ignore the Security Council and make its own judgment on war or peace. Most council members want Blix, in charge of chemical, biological and ballistic weapons programs, to report on major violations rather than accept evidence from the United States or Britain. Consequently, the United States appears to be putting pressure on the inspectors to speed up their work. Greenstock said the inspectors were doing their job as quickly as they could. "It is clear that as the inspectors continue to go about their business, there is increasing, even if grudging acceptance, that they are doing their job professionally," he said. reuters.com

To: Ed Huang who wrote (1667)	1/16/2003 11:56:19 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

>>>As long as monitoring inspections remained in place, Iraq presented a WMD-based threat to no one.<<< armscontrol.org One would think prolonged and thorough UN inspections, with life all around would be preferrable to a fullscale and potential tinderbox war with death all around?