|
The UN Security Council split into three broad groups over Iraq on Friday, with signs that the United States, Britain and Spain did not have the minimum nine votes needed for a new resolution giving Iraq until March 17 to show the council it is willing to disarm.
The United States and its allies, along with Bulgaria, argued that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has not complied with UN demands and the Security Council should pass the new resolution.
The second group, led by France, Russia and Germany, says that UN weapons inspections are making progress and should continue without any early deadlines.
The third group, mainly small nonpermanent members of the council, would rather not take sides in the dispute.
The split between the pro-American group of four members and the anti-war group led by France remained much the same as on Feb. 14, when foreign ministers last heard a report from the chief UN weapon inspectors.
But Chile and Pakistan, previously in the undecided group in the middle, appeared to move closer to the anti-war camp, complicating Washington's quest for a UN resolution that it could portray as authority to attack and invade Iraq.
A resolution in the 15-member Security Council needs a minimum of nine votes for adoption and no veto by any of its five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Seven of the 15 members appear to oppose the measure.
Here are the members of the Security Council, divided into their groups, with excerpts from the speeches their representatives made in the council on Friday:
Governments which favor a new resolution giving Iraq a deadline to disarm or possibly face attack:
The United States Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "Now is the time for the council to tell Saddam that the clock has not been stopped by his stratagems and his machinations. We believe that the resolution that has been put forward for action by this council is appropriate and in the very near future, we should bring it before this council for a vote. The clock continues to tick, and the consequences of Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to disarm will be very, very real."
Britain Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "Nobody, not one minister before this council, in my hearing, has said that Iraq is now fully, actively and immediately in compliance with (Security Council resolution) 1441. They have not so far taken this final opportunity."
Spain Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said: "Only maximum pressure or credible threat of force has any type of impression on the Iraqi regime ... What is the message that this council should send? First, that we will not tolerate any more of Saddam's games."
Bulgaria Bulgarian ambassador Stefan Tafrov said: "Despite the indispensable coupling of diplomacy with force, Iraq's cooperation remains inadequate; it is neither immediate, nor unconditional nor active ... Bulgaria is prepared to support the draft resolution."
Governments which say that an attack on Iraq would be premature and that UN inspections should continue:
France Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said: "By imposing a deadline of only a few days would we merely be seeking a pretext for war? ... I will say it again: France will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes the automatic use of force."
Russia Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said: "The possibilities for disarming Iraq through political means do exist ... Now we need not new Security Council resolutions; we have enough of those. We need now active support of the inspectors in carrying out their tasks."
Germany Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said: "We see no need for a second resolution. Why should we leave the path we have embarked on now that the inspections on the basis of Resolution 1441 are showing viable results?"
China Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said: "Much progress has been made in the weapons inspections thanks to the unremitting efforts of UNMOVIC and IAEA (the UN inspection agencies). Judging from the reports of the two inspection bodies today, Resolution 1441 has been implemented smoothly on the whole with progress made and results achieved."
Syria Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara said: "Some unfortunately believe that this huge buildup of forces is by itself sufficient to justify war against Iraq. If this is the case, are we before a just cause or an armed robbery?"
Pakistan Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram said: "We believe that there is no imminent threat to international peace and security ... The cost of delay in our view will be much less than the cost of war."
Chile Chile gave a nod to the anti-war group when Chilean Foreign Minister Soledad Alvear said: "We are convinced that this last opportunity for peace passes through strengthening inspections in Iraq with clear deadlines and concrete demands in keeping with the sense of urgency in resolution 1441."
Governments which have not taken sides:
Mexico Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez said: "Mexico insists on the importance of working toward a consensual position about the future actions that the Security Council shall take with regard to Iraq. Mexico calls on all members to work with creativity."
Cameroon Cameroonian Ambassador Martin Belinga-Eboutou said Iraq had not taken its last chance to disarm but Cameroon was against war. "We absolutely must reach a consensus solution," he added.
Angola Angolan Deputy Foreign Minister Georges Chikoti said the best way to maintain the unity of the Security Council and avoid war would be to strengthen the inspections, setting benchmarks and dates for Iraq to comply. The Angolan ambassador to the United Nations Ismael Abraao Gaspar Martins told reporters, "If that is what it (the resolution) looks like, then my first reaction is that it's not a very good draft."
Guinea Guinean Foreign Minister Francois Ouesseynou Fall, who chaired the council meeting, also said that the council must act in unison.
(China Daily March 8, 2003)
|
