| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Full text: Draft UN resolution |
| 2003-03-07 |
| From the BBC, only need to read the bold text... This is the full text of the draft United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraqi disarmament tabled jointly by the UK, US and Spain. The first 11 paragraphs are the official preamble; what follows - marked by numbers 1-4 - is the concrete wording of the resolution, including the new deadline announced by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on 7 March. Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999 and 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002, and all the relevant statements of its president, Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, Recalling that its resolution 1441 (2002), while deciding that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions, Recalling that in its resolution 1441 (2002) the council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and to co-operate fully in the implementation, of that resolution, would constitute a further material breach, Noting, in that context, that in its resolution 1441 (2002), the council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations, Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution, Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait and the neighbouring states, Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security, Recognising the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area, Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations, 1 Reaffirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1441 (2002); 2 Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region; 3 Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003 the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items. 4 Decides to remain seized of the matter. |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #11 DM, Let's see if I understand:It is the U.S.'s fault the U.N.doesn't have the cajones to enfoce 1441. Jeez what a Ditz. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-03-08 07:19:13 |
| #10 Sorry, Danish Mermaid, but the world IS that simple. Live or die. Free or slave. Win or lose. See, what you don't get is that what's coming next is the Battle of Iraq, not the War in Iraq. This is Phase 2 of the War on Terrorism, a war that, if we win, will save your ass. And if we lose, as the peaceniks and leftists and Islamists hope, you and your culture are doomed. Only by winning in Iraq is there a chance to change the Middle East from a fetid dump that breeds terrorists to a place where people can live free, aspire to a better life, and pursue happiness as THEY, not some mullah or strongman, sees fit. That's what this war is about. If you're with us, you have a chance to be on the side of the angels. If you're against us, you are consigning the people of the Middle East to an even worse fate and all of us to darkness and fear. |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-03-08 02:28:39 |
| #9 Yes yes, sides. Either with you or... I wish the world was that simple. I wonder what Chile or Mexico have to hide in Iraq though. |
| Posted by: Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 22:07:19 |
| #8 Danish Mermaid Hey, that's a nice statue of you in the harbor. But I think you've got the UN picture all wrong. The resolution has nothing to do with before-the-war. It's all about after-the-war. Bush is making people take sides, publicly. He knows what the Americans and British are going to find when they go into Iraq. He's going to make sure it gets world-wide coverage. What has been happening in Iraq, that the French and the Germans and the Russians wanted to cover up, will get lots of coverage after the war. And that (along with an unprecedented demonstration of American capability) will affect the balance of power in the post-war world. The word is shame. The French and Germans are going to be hearing that word a lot when this is all over. And they'll have to be quiet for a while... |
| Posted by: Patrick 2003-03-07 21:54:21 |
| #7 When the "Security" Council votes down the resolution, and they will, the US will be able to say that the UN has refused to extend the time limit to remedy the already existing material breach and begin the liberation of Iraq before the 17th. That'll show 'em. The Iraqi people will remember who opposed the end to their brutalization. |
| Posted by: GKarp 2003-03-07 19:48:00 |
| #6 So be it. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-07 19:44:06 |
| #5 If the United Nations Security Council has any guts it will vote this resolution down. Your president already said it: The U.S. doesn't need "permission" from anyone. Then stop asking for it. Stop bullying the small nations or buying them. Spare us this farce. Do what you need to do. But not in our name. I'd rather see the United Nations die in honour than in infamy. |
| Posted by: Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 19:32:52 |
| #4 Rex Mundi: Time out! I'm on your side! My comment was directed at Danish Mermaid, not in support of her. I share your frustration at delay, but given the fact that we have decided to play the U.N. game, the proposed resolution (and perhaps I have misread it) seems to put the French, Germans, and Russians in a no-win position. If they veto it, we will go ahead anyway, and the U.N. will be history in the bargain. If they approve it, there is no way that the Security Council will be able to pass a resolution on March 17 that Saddam has "demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate, and active cooperation" with Resolution 1441: because, even if they tried to, we (and the U.K. as well) would veto any such resolution. Therefore, unless I am missing something (and I am quite willing to be corrected), I think that the French and their friends are up the creek without the proverbial paddle. I, like you, would prefer not to have further delays, but, as President Bush said last night, let's have the French and their friends "show their cards." |
| Posted by: Idler 2003-03-07 19:14:44 |
| #3 DM / Idler Really? 10 days is 10 days too long. The Bastid has had 12 years to disarm, so keep your sanctimony to yourself. Sammy is in absolute control. At any day, at any moment, he could OPEN UP HIS COUNTRY to full disarmamament - and he refuses to do so. Hence...shut your cake holes if you can't come up with an argument that is based in reality. You post a hypothetical situation and immediately apply to what is currently happening. Go back to whatever bridge you are currenlty living under. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-03-07 18:37:31 |
| #2 Danish Mermaid: Exactly. Rather nice piece of drafting, wouldn't you say? |
| Posted by: Idler 2003-03-07 18:22:56 |
| #1 ...unless, on or before 17 March 2003 the council concludes... Of course the council will never conclude such a thing even if Blix affirmed that Iraq was in full compliance. The U.S. would veto such a conclusion and invade anyway. It's ridiculous to believe that Iraq could comply with this in 10 days. The U.S. would just say that it had info that Iraq is still hiding something. Sheer hypocrisy given the fact the U.S. forces are already operating in Iraq. What a farce "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." (Voltaire) Hence: NON - NJET - NEIN |
| Posted by: Danish Mermaid 2003-03-07 17:48:11 |