Three big powers
tell US it's wrong on Iraq
By
Caroline Overington, Sydney Morning Herald
September 30, 2002
The United States was last night considering the implications of
leading an attack on Iraq without the support of Russia, France and
China,
after all three rejected a US draft plan for dealing with President
Saddam
Hussein.
The US revealed at the weekend that it wanted to give the Iraqi leader
30 days to open his borders to weapons inspectors under new, strict
conditions, or face a military strike.
The new conditions, which were quickly rejected by Baghdad, would
include allowing weapons inspectors unobstructed access to factories,
military bases and Saddam's presidential palaces.
The US wants the United Nations Security Council to adopt its plan as a
binding resolution, but Russia, France and China, three of the
council's five permanent members, have already said they do not support
it.
Russia's Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, emerged from 90 minutes of
talks with US diplomats to re-state Moscow's opposition to a military
strike,
telling reporters the UN should accept Iraq's offer to allow weapons
inspectors to return before making threats.
"UN weapons inspectors should return to Iraq as quickly as possible,"
he said. "The necessary conditions for this exist."
France also appeared unmoved by US pressure, with a spokeswoman for
President Jacques Chirac saying weapons inspectors should return to
Iraq before threats were made because of "the seriousness of the
decisions
to be taken and the consequences".
The Chinese Premier, Zhu Rongji, said China had "respect for Iraq's
sovereignty and territorial integrity".
"If the weapons inspections do not take place, if we do not have clear
proof and if we do not have the authorisation of the Security Council,
we cannot launch a military attack on Iraq," he said.
Washington's lone supporter among permanent members of the council is
Britain. In London, the Defence Ministry said it was preparing to add
4000 troops to the 60,000-strong US force already in the Gulf region.
President George Bush used his weekly radio address on Saturday to
signal a willingness to proceed without the support of all members of
the Security Council, saying: "The Iraqi dictator must be disarmed.
These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced."
The US and Britain sent senior diplomats to Moscow, Paris and Beijing
over the weekend in an effort to win support for their campaign, but
met strong resistance from Russia and France, both of which have
historic
friendships with Iraq.
A US undersecretary of state, Marc Grossman, who has visited Moscow and
Paris with the political director of Britain's Foreign Office, Peter
Ricketts, said all nations appeared to agree that dealing with Iraq was
"a challenge".
US and British diplomats are using two main arguments: first, that
Saddam has obstructed the work of weapons inspectors so many times that
the threat of force is necessary to make him comply this time; and
second, that Iraqis support the invasion.
This latter point is the more contentious. The US is using diplomats
who have travelled widely in Iraq to make the case that the people of
that
country, and in particular its women, want a change of regime as much
as Washington does, and would welcome a US-led strike in the same way as
citizens of Afghanistan did.
Copyright © 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/29/1033283388011.html
