The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
1140.
Mr Belinga-Eboutou
identified the “major and central problem” was to
“induce
the Iraqi
authorities to co-operate actively, fully and unconditionally”. The
“gravity of the
situation
and the need for effectiveness” required the Council to “harmonise
viewpoints
through
mutual concessions” to find a solution based on consensus. Council
members
should
build a common position to make it clear to Iraq that if it wanted
peaceful
disarmament
it had “no alternative but to abide by the decisions of the
international
community”.
1141.
Mr Tafrov
stated that Dr Blix’s report was nuanced. Results to date had
been
“modest”.
Co-operation was “insufficient” and Bulgaria’s view was that Iraq
was still
in material
breach of resolution 1441.
1142.
Mr Tafrov
thought that the tripartite memorandum and the draft
resolution
submitted
by Spain, the US and the UK were “not incompatible”. Bulgaria
agreed with
France,
Germany and Russia that the pressure on Iraq must be increased and
the draft
resolution
was an effective means to do so. Its adoption would be “a logical
continuation
of the
efforts of the Security Council to make Iraq understand that
patience has its
limits”.
Bulgaria called for unity of the Council to preserve the
credibility of the United
Nations and
a means to achieve Iraq’s disarmament, and for an additional effort
for
peaceful
disarmament.
1143.
Mr Akram
stated that, if war was to be avoided, the Council must impress on
Iraq
that it
must comply “fully and faithfully”. It was “unfortunate” that
“divergent approaches”
had emerged
within the Council. Pakistan believed that “an agreed approach
can
and must be
evolved”. He stated: “Once we establish the ways to credibly
achieve
the
disarmament of Iraq … we can also agree on a relatively short time
frame.” That
proposition
“would be better than propositions that could result in the early
use of force”.
Pakistan
did not believe there was an “imminent threat to international
peace and
security”
and the “cost of delay” would be “much less than the cost of war”.
War would
“have grave
consequences for the Iraqi people, for peace and stability in our
fragile
region, for
international security and for a world order based on the
principles of the
United
Nations Charter and the rule of law”.
1144.
Mr François
Lounceny Fall, the President of the Council and the Guinean
Foreign
Minister,
stated that Guinea “remained convinced” that “while the opportunity
for a
peaceful
solution still exists”, it could “be seized only if the Iraqi
authorities co-operate
sincerely”.
Guinea was “in favour of continued inspections” but believed they
could not
“go on
indefinitely”. A more unified approach from the Council was the
“only course” that
could give
the Council’s actions “the necessary authority and
legitimacy”.
1145.
Mr Aldouri
underlined Iraq’s “pledge to continue pro-active co-operation”
with
UNMOVIC and
the IAEA. He drew attention to the position of France, Germany,
Russia
and China
who had demanded that the work of the inspectors should continue
and that
they should
“be given enough time to complete their tasks by peaceful
means”.
386