| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| UN rift looms over Iraq sanctions |
| 2003-05-09 |
| The United Nations Security Council is to discuss ending 12 years of sanctions on Iraq on Friday. The United States is to present a draft resolution - co-sponsored by Britain and Spain - which would immediately lift all restrictions imposed on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990, apart from an arms embargo. However, there are divisions within the council over the role the United Nations should play in post-war Iraq. Under the US proposals, a new body comprising Britain and the United States - known as The Authority - would decide how income from the sale of Iraqi oil would be spent. The UN, which currently controls Iraq's oil revenue, would be confined to an advisory role. The BBC UN correspondent, Greg Barrow, says it is by no means certain that other council members like France and Russia will give unreserved support to the US vision and there is every indication that negotiations over this draft resolution will be difficult. Somehow, I think that might be the intention. "UNSC - will you accept reality, or do you want to continue rolling around on the floor, gasping and thrashing your legs? your death rattle thing is quite amusing, but we have got work to do..." The Security Council is scheduled to hold a closed door meeting in New York at 1030 local time (1430 GMT). For the resolution to pass, it needs the support of nine of the 15 members of the council, and must not be vetoed by any one of the five permanent members, which include France and Russia. Russia wants to see a strong role for the UN to give any US-chosen Iraqi authority international legitimacy. Russia and France also want the UN to follow procedures - opposed by Washington - which would require UN arms inspectors to declare Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction before sanctions are removed. The draft resolution does not mention the return of UN weapons teams. US Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes met Russian officials in Moscow on Thursday hoping to get Russia's support. Afterwards he said he was "very pleased", but indicated no agreement had been reached. France - which angered Washington before the war by threatening to block any resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq - has declined to make any comments ahead of the UN debate. European Union aid commissioner Poul Nielson, for his part, has made clear his opposition to the resolution. "They [the Maybe if you took a rational perspective for once in your goddam life you might begin to see the Iraqis need oil like Denmark needs sand eels and pigs. Did you miss school the day they did economics? The White House has expressed confidence that the draft resolution would face few obstacles. "The president wants the Security Council to act quickly and there is no need for a lengthy debate," spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters. He said the resolution would "lift sanctions on Iraq, wind down the oil-for-food programme, provide for an appropriate administration to help provide security and rebuild Iraq, and encourage international participation in this effort". The resolution would apparently allow some contracts concluded by the old Iraqi regime under the oil-for-food programme to be honoured - a move designed to please the Russians, correspondents say. Who decides which ones? Reports say the council is unlikely to make a decision before 24 May. DRAFT RESOLUTION: MAIN POINTS |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #6 I'm not so sure that we are drawing out the weasles, (though we may well be) but rather are attempting to comply with UN resolutions already in place. One reason why the AOW keeps saying that the war is illegitimate and that we are an "occupying army", rather than a victor, is due to the "lawyers" part of the "lawyers guns and money" cliche. I think the US is just dotting the i's and crossing the t's to make sure that the AOW don't stumble on issues that their lawyers can easily sink their fangs into, allowing the UN/AOW the ability to start up big circus side shows that distract and delay us. |
| Posted by: Becky 2003-05-09 21:26:08 |
| #5 I think that we are drawing out the weasels again to see if they are with us or against us. The UN and UNSC will do something right or they will show how useless they are. We are offering an olive branch on one hand an a rope with the other. The AoW must choose and have to live with the consequences. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-05-09 12:58:23 |
| #4 Here's an idea. Ignore them. It appears the French and the Russians did when Saddam was in power. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-05-09 12:42:48 |
| #3 we have britain and spain aboard for a very aggressive resolution - theres lots of room for concessions to break the AoW and still come up with a decent res. Can the AoW hang togther is the big question. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-05-09 10:12:36 |
| #2 Some sort of deal is going to have to be done eventually, though the question remains whether Paris and Moscow will take yes for an answer. Putin might, Chirac probably not. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-05-09 07:37:50 |
| #1 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I vaguely recall that the primary suppliers of food for the oil-for-food program are France and Russia. Plenty of conflicts of interest on this one! |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-05-09 06:07:51 |