UN: NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL HAVE THEIR SAY ON FIRST DAY OF SPECIAL TWO-DAY SESSION
Record ID:
645843
UN: NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL HAVE THEIR SAY ON FIRST DAY OF SPECIAL TWO-DAY SESSION
- Title: UN: NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL HAVE THEIR SAY ON FIRST DAY OF SPECIAL TWO-DAY SESSION
- Date: 13th March 2003
- Summary: (U7) UNITED NATIONS (FILE) (REUTERS) SLV UNITED NATIONS BUILDING
- Embargoed: 28th March 2003 12:00
- Keywords:
- Location: UNITED NATIONS
- Country: USA
- Topics: General
- Reuters ID: LVA6LNJZT2XRVYSPZ0Q681SRWQKY
- Story Text: Countries which are not members of the 15-member United Nations Security Council were allowed to have their say on the first day of a two-day Special Security Council session proposed by the Non-Aligned Movement of developing nations.
Iraq kicked off a U.N. Special Council debate on its fate on Tuesday (March 11, 2003) with a plea to the international community to head off a looming U.S. attack.
As the open session is being held to allow countries which are not members of the 15-nation Security Council to have their say, Mohammed Aldouri, Iraq's Ambassador to the U.N., used the floor to accuse the U.S. and British of underhand motives to control the region in waging war on Baghdad.
Aldouri argued, "Their goal is not disarmament, a disarmament which in effect has been achieved and they know this, as will be ascertained by UNMOVIC and IAEA soon. Rather their objective is to lay their hands on our oil, to control the region."
The debate comes as the polarised Council prepares to vote on a U.S-U.K-Spanish draft resolution setting a March 17 deadline for full Iraqi disarmament or war. Only four of the 15 Council nations currently support the resolution, with most wanting more time for weapons inspectors to continue their work.
The United States has called for a vote on the resolution by the end of this week while signaling it was open to some modification that could broaden support for the proposal in the deeply divided council.
Ambassador Yahya Mahmassani, representing the League of Arab States, said, "In light of the conclusions of the reports of the inspectors there is absolutely no justification for waging war against Iraq, therefore we wonder why the war? and what present danger and looming threat call for war? The insistence on waging war at a time when the inspections are proceeding vigorously towards the verification of elimination of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq poses questions whether the actual objective of the war is elimination of weapons of mass destruction or whether it has other aims."
Australia, which has long been a supporter of President Bush's Iraq policy, once again re-iterated Canberra's backing.
Ambassador John Dauth said "Giving inspectors more time or giving them additional capabilities will mean nothing, Mr President, nothing unless Iraq genuinely co-operates."
Canada, which has been instrumental in influencing undecided members of the U.N. Security Council, called a three-week ultimatum for Iraq to comply with U.N. demands to disarm or face the possibility of war.
The proposal by Ambassador Paul Heinbecker, a revision of an earlier suggestion, would give Iraq more time to meet U.N.
demands than the March 17 U.N.-British-Spanish resolution deadline. Canada is not a council member.
Heinbecker said that should Iraq comply with some of the demands, the U.N. Security Council should set a series of rolling deadlines that would ensure Iraq continued cooperating. Canada's earlier proposals influenced six undecided members of the council in asking for the March 17 deadline to be extended and Britain is considering asking for a few extra days.
"We believe therefore that the council should set a deadline of three weeks for Iraq to demonstrate conclusively that it is implementing these tasks and is co-operating actively and effectively on substance, on real disarmament,"
Heinbecker told the Security Council.
Turkey, Iraq's northern neighbour pleaded its case that it stands to significantly suffer in the event of a war. Recently a vote in the Turkish parliament rejecting a U.S. request to base troops in Turkey, took Washington by surprise. The Bush administration had been negotiating with Ankara for months over an aid package in return for military bases in Turkey.
Turkish Ambassador Umit Panir told the Council that he resents criticism of his country, arguing that it will be severely affected by refugees and economic instability in the event of war.
"We are not only near to the area of conflict we are side by side with it, hence we cannot readily contemplate any outcome, likewise, Mr. President, presenting these many forecast situations out of their true context and depicting Turkey as haggling over a price tag as if this has been a pecuniary affair has been a gross disservice for a country and its people that has been a bastion of stability in that region," said Panir.
The United States has called for a vote on its draft resolution by the end of this week while signalling it was open to some modification that could broaden support for the proposal in the deeply divided council. - Copyright Holder: FILE REUTERS (CAN SELL)
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None