The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
682.
Mr Lavrov
stated that “the Security Council alone” had “the right to
determine what
steps
should be taken … to maintain or restore international peace and
security”. Russia
rejected
“the attempts” of the US and the UK “to justify the use of force on
the basis
of a
mandate that was previously issued by the Security Council”. The
actions were
a violation
of Security Council resolutions. No one was:
“… entitled
to act independently on behalf of the United Nations, still less
assume
the
functions of a world policeman.”
683.
Although there
were problems in respect of Iraq’s co-operation, the crisis
had
been
“created artificially”. Partly that was the result of
“irresponsible acts” by Mr Butler
in
presenting a report on 15 December which “gave a distorted
picture of the real state
of affairs
and concluded that there was a lack of full co-operation on the
part of Iraq”,
which was
“not borne out by the facts”. He had also “grossly abused his
authority” by
withdrawing
UNSCOM without consultation and the media had received a leaked
copy
of his
report before the Security Council itself.
684.
Mr Qin
Huasun said that the US and UK had “started a military attack …
which
violated
the … Charter and norms governing international law”. China was
“deeply
shocked”
and condemned the “unprovoked military action” which was
“completely
groundless”.
The differences between UNSCOM and Iraq could “properly be
settled
through
dialogue and consultation” while the use of force:
“… far from
helping to reach a settlement, may create serious consequences for
the
implementation
of Security Council resolutions, for relations between Iraq and
the
United
Nations and for peace and stability in the world and in the
region.”
685.
Mr Qin
Huasun called on the US and UK immediately to stop all military
action. He
added that
Mr Butler had “played a dishonourable role” in the crisis,
submitting reports
to Mr Annan
that “were one-sided and evasive regarding the facts”. The purpose
of
those
reports might have been to provide “the main argument for the use
of force”, but
there was
“in fact no excuse or reason for the use of force”.
686.
Costa Rica,
Kenya and Sweden voiced more muted but still explicit
criticism.
687.
Mr Bernd
H Niehaus, Costa Rican Permanent Representative to the UN,
stated
that Costa
Rica had learned of the air strikes “with great and profound
disquiet” and
reaffirmed
its “long-standing position rejecting the unilateral use of force
and insisting
on
adherence to international legal instruments”. Nonetheless, it had
“witnessed with
frustration”
Iraq’s policy of “defying and ignoring international obligations”
and “forcefully
and
vigorously” appealed “to Iraq to put an end, once and for all and
unconditionally,
to its
provocative actions.”
688.
Mr Dahlgren
stated that Iraq had “again and again … refused to abide by
the
clear
obligations that a unanimous Security Council” had decided upon,
and that
Sweden
would have been ready “to support a decision in the Council on
military action
152