Previous page | Contents | Next page
1.1  |  UK Iraq strategy 1990 to 2000
co-operation from Iraq that the former Special Commission provoked large-scale
strikes by the United States and Great Britain against Iraq in December last
year, circumventing the Security Council”;
introducing a “clarification … to the effect that progress on the remaining
disarmament tasks – not their virtual completion – would be grounds for
assessing the conditions necessary to the suspension of sanctions”; vague
wording in an earlier draft would have “provided certain members of the Council”
with “an opportunity to … require virtually full completion of the key disarmament
tasks … and then, on that pretext, to postpone suspension endlessly”;
removing wording about “control of the financial aspects of the suspension,
which essentially predetermined the continuation of the sanctions regime in
another guise”; and
spelling out more clearly the reference to Chapter VII “so as not to provide any
legal grounds for unilateral actions of force against Iraq contrary to positions
held in the Security Council”.
822.  Russia could not support the draft resolution because of “deficiencies of the draft
resolution and some hidden dangers that remain” and it would “not forget that certain
countries still have their own agendas with respect to Iraq that may be at variance with
the collective position of the Security Council”. The Council had “never authorized the
establishment of the ‘No-Fly Zones’”, nor had it authorised “subversive acts against
the Iraqi Government”. If the Council sought “truly new approaches … to a long-term
settlement in the Gulf, such illegal, unilateral actions must end”.
823.  But Russia had decided “not to hinder” adoption of the resolution because
“serious changes” had been introduced which offered “an opportunity to break the
Iraqi stalemate”.
824.  Mr Lavrov warned:
“The fact that we are not blocking the adoption of this imperfect draft resolution
should not be taken to indicate that we are obliged to play along with attempts
to impose its forcible implementation …
“… Judging from existing objective assessments, Iraq is already no threat to
international and regional peace and security. In any event, no concrete proof has
been submitted to the Council in recent years.
“It is now up to the Security Council to act objectively and in an unbiased way …
“… it is important that … it has been possible to avoid a split … and to confirm the
key role of the Council in the political settlement of the most important problems of
the world today … Russia will continue to do its utmost to strengthen that role.”
825.  Mr Hasmy stated that the issue before the Council was “not just … asserting its
authority and reclaiming its credibility … but equally importantly … restoring confidence
181
Previous page | Contents | Next page