Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10152

UNITED NATIONS — The text of the U.S.-British-Spanish draft resolution on Iraq:


Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and 1441 (2002) of 8 November all the relevant statements of its president,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a cease-fire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein;

Recalling that its resolution 1441 (2002), while acknowledging that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,

Recalling that in its resolution 1441 (2002) the council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution, would constitute a further material breach,

Noting, that in that context, that in its resolution 1441 (2002), the council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,

Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution,

Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring states,

Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,

Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441 (2002).

Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

I get the impression that it might fail if the UK and the US try to push it through pronto (as we appear to be promising to do) but that it stands a better chance if the whole thing is slowed down a little. Of course, we don't want to fight in the Iraqi Summer with boots melting onto the feet of our soldiers.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10152

Sunday will be a good day for a vote.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: China
Posts: 11795

quote:

---

Originally posted by MstrG

Decides to remain seized of the matter.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10152

According to Fox, it's UN-speak for "remain focused on".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

They were saying 2 weeks till a vote, maybe a little more, last night. Commentators also pointed out that French opposition is still strong, although they haven't circulated a counter draft proposal (at least, not yet). It looks like the two week timetable may be too tight to change the minds of the French and Germans, at least (the Chinese and Russians, as might be expected, may change their minds more easily). Of course, if Saddam fails to destroy those rockets, or if Blix says that Iraq aren't cooperating at all, then that may all change. France hasn't ruled out the eventual use of force in any case.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

There was a former UK ambassador to the UN speaking on the Today program this morning, and he made the point that all this is about time, because it is going on against a backdrop of agreement that Saddam should be disarmed. The UK and the US (and, I guess, Spain and Bulgaria) want military action now to achieve it, the French and the Germans (and Russia and China too, although they are not so bothered) want to try more inspections with a stronger inspection regime first, then use force if that fails. So any lasting damage that is done to the UN is being done when on the most important issue, everyone agrees, but disagrees about the best way to achieve it. This retired UN ambassador compared this to a few years ago, when there wasn't really agreement on the matter of Iraq at all.

Interesting times.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
all about time........... everyone agrees, but disagrees about the best way to achieve it.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2803

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Of course, we don't want to fight in the Iraqi Summer with boots melting onto the feet of our soldiers.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

Boots! The British army's getting soft obviously. When I was in the SAS, we had to march oon our hands across the desert on our elbows.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

Apparently if you use your own money to buy them, you can get the non-melting variety.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged