1.1 | UK
Iraq strategy 1990 to 2000
that Brazil
had learned of Iraq’s decision “with a deep sense of dismay”. He
also drew
attention
to the “special importance” of the provisions in the resolution
which stressed
“that the
Security Council will continue to be seized of this issue, in
accordance with its
primary
responsibility … for the maintenance of international peace and
security”.
601.
Mr Mahugu
stated that the resolution contained “nothing that could open the
door
in any
eventuality for any kind of action without the clear and precise
authority of the
Security
Council”.
602.
Mr Qin
Huasun stated that the Council “should seriously reflect on the
root causes
of the
present situation”. There was “no doubt” that Iraq had to fulfil
its obligations in a
comprehensive
manner, but the Council also had “the responsibility to make a fair
and
objective
assessment” of Iraq’s compliance. China’s view was that some
weapons files
were “ripe
to move” to the next phase of monitoring and verification. The fact
that the
Security
Council had been “unable to make such a political decision” was
“regrettable”.
603.
Mr Qin
Huasun added that Mr Annan’s proposals and ideas, which had
been
“warmly
received and supported by an overwhelming majority of the Council
members”.
China
believed that conducting a comprehensive review was “still a way
out of the
present
impasse”. Dialogue, consultation and confidence building was the
only way out.
He appealed
“to all sides to exercise restraint” and to “refrain from any
actions that might
sharpen the
conflict and exacerbate tensions”.
604.
Mr Qin
Huasun concluded that there were “still elements” in the draft
resolution
which were
“not totally to our liking”, but he would vote in favour because it
had:
“…
incorporated amendments put forward by China and other interested
countries
by taking
out the part which determines that the situation in Iraq poses a
threat to
international
peace and security, and by adding that it is the primary
responsibility
of the
Security Council to maintain international peace and security,
reiterating its
support for
the Secretary-General in his efforts to ensure the implementation
of the
Memorandum
of Understanding …
“… We hope
that this resolution will facilitate the resumption of
co-operation
between
Iraq, on the one hand, and UNSCOM and IAEA, on the other, to allow
an
early
comprehensive review which will in turn free the Iraqi people from
sanctions.”
605.
Speaking after
the vote, Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated that Iraq’s decisions
of
5 August
and 31 October had put it “in flagrant violation of its
obligations” and it was
“right that
the Council should react formally and unanimously to this latest
attempt to
challenge
its authority and that of the United Nations as a whole”.
“Co-operation not
confrontation”
was “the only way out from sanctions for Iraq”.
606.
Commenting on
the views expressed by other speakers on the meaning of
this
resolution
as regards the possible use of force, Sir Jeremy added that the
view of the
UK was
that it was:
137