1.1 | UK
Iraq strategy 1990 to 2000
•
concealing
the “evidence of its past and current programmes”;
•
engaging in
a “policy of harassment and deceit”;
•
blocking
inspections “whenever it feared that anything incriminating would
be
found”;
and
•
failing to
produce documents.
675.
Sir Jeremy
added that Iraq had “deliberately provoked a series of crises”
since
October
1997 “in an attempt to wear down the will of the international
community”. When
military
action had been called off on 14 November, Saddam Hussein had
been warned
that, if he
broke his word “once more, there would be no second
chances”.
676.
Sir Jeremy
stated that Mr Butler’s report of 15 December made clear
that Iraq had
“yet again
failed to keep its promises”.
677.
Sir Jeremy
stated that resolutions adopted by the Security Council
provided:
“… a clear
legal basis for military action … Resolution 1154 (1998) made it
clear
that any
violation by Iraq of its obligations to allow the Special
Commission and the
International
Atomic Energy Agency unrestricted access would have the
severest
consequences
… Resolution 1205 (1998) established that Iraq’s decision
of
31 October
1998 to cease co-operation with the Special Commission was a
flagrant
violation
of resolution 687 (1991), which laid down the conditions for the
1991 cease-
fire. By
that resolution, therefore, the Council implicitly revived the
authorisation to
use force
given in resolution 678 (1990). And Ambassador Butler’s report
makes
clear that,
despite its undertakings … Iraq has not only failed to resume
full
co-operation
with the Special Commission but has imposed new restrictions
on
its work.”
678.
Mr Burleigh
rehearsed the points in his letter to the President of the
Security
Council. He
also praised the “outstanding professional work” of UNSCOM and
Mr Butler.
679.
Slovenia and
Japan supported military action but China and Russia were
sharply
critical of
unilateral action.
680.
Mr Lavrov
stated that the military action had caused casualties,
destroyed
“valuable
material goods” and created a threat “to peace and security not
only in the
region but
beyond it”.
681.
Mr Lavrov
added that the action had done “Grave harm” to the work on
a
post‑crisis
settlement and to dismantle Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and
their
delivery
systems. It also “called into question” the system which had been
“so carefully
set up over
a long period of time to monitor” Iraq’s prohibited programmes.
Russia
objected to
the US and UK action. It was “an unprovoked act of force” which
“grossly
violated
the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international
law and the
generally
recognized norms and rules of responsible behaviour on the part of
States
in the
international arena”.
151