The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
“Only the
Security Council has the authority to determine if, when and under
what
conditions
the formal cease-fire it declared on 3 April 1991 holds or
not.”
478.
Mr Amorim
added that members of the Council had been “assured by its
sponsors”
that they
did not intend the draft resolution “to imply any automaticity in
the authorisation
of the use
of force in case of a possible violation by Iraq”. Brazil was
satisfied that
nothing in
the resolution delegated the “authority” that belonged to the
Security Council.
479.
Mr Hans
Dahlgren, Swedish Permanent Representative to the UN, stated that
it
was “very
important” that the Council’s responsibility for international
peace and security
was “not
circumvented”, and that the last paragraph of the draft resolution
was “an
expression
of the need to safeguard this responsibility”.
480.
Mr Hisashi
Owada, Japanese Permanent Representative to the UN,
emphasised
that
paragraph 3 of the resolution reflected the Council’s wish “to
register its firm resolve
that
violation …. would have the severest consequences for Iraq” but
that it was “not
meant to
address the issue of so-called automaticity”; the draft resolution
was “not
designed to
prejudge the issues of the future”.
481.
Mr Qin
Huasun stated that China greatly appreciated “the wise decision
made
by the
Secretary-General at the critical juncture between war and peace”
and that it
supported
his diplomatic efforts. He added:
“The
situation in the Gulf region is complex and sensitive. If it is
dealt with
appropriately
there will be peace. Any imprudence, however, may trigger a
war,
which is in
no one’s interest … We are not in favour of resorting to or
threatening
to use
force … It would only cause heavy civilian casualties and possibly
even more
severe
consequences.”
482.
Mr Qin
Huasun added that the Chinese delegation had “repeatedly
and
unambiguously
demanded that the draft resolution should contain no
automatic
authorisation
of the use of force against Iraq”. He had “listened very carefully
to the
explanations
offered by the sponsors of the draft resolution”, but they had not
eliminated
his
“misgivings about the possible abuse of the draft
resolution”.
483.
Mr Qin
Huasun stressed that adoption of the resolution would:
“… in no
way mean that the Security Council is automatically authorising any
State
to use
force against Iraq. The Council cannot and should not prejudge
whether Iraq
will
violate its resolutions; even less should the Council predetermine
the course of
future
action. The Security Council can make judgements and decisions only
on the
basis of
prevailing circumstances.”
484.
Mr Qin
Huasun concluded that Iraq was “a sovereign State and its
sovereignty,
dignity and
legitimate security concerns should also be respected”. The
Security
Council
should “make a timely and objective assessment of Iraq’s
implementation of its
resolutions”.
China hoped that UNSCOM would “complete its task of verification
and the
110