31 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/13/06 2:06am)
UNITED NATIONS -- The United States on Thursday introduced a new draft resolution in the Security Council to punish North Korea for its reported nuclear test and said it wants a vote on Friday.\nRussia urged the United States not to rush the vote, saying Moscow still had differences and the U.S. should wait for the results of a flurry of high-level diplomacy. China backed Russia's call, saying Beijing would welcome more talks so the Security Council can send a united and forceful message to Pyongyang condemning the test.\nAfter formally introducing the resolution in the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters Washington wants a vote Friday.\n"I think the council should try to respond to a nuclear test within the same week that the test occurred," he said. "We're certainly in favor of keeping all the diplomatic channels open, but we also want swift action, and we shouldn't allow meetings, and more meetings ... to be an excuse for inaction."\nThe United States and Japan had initially hoped for a vote Thursday. But if Washington wants to get China and Russia -- the two countries closest to North Korea -- on board, a vote is likely be delayed until next week.\nChina appeared to shy away from backing U.S. efforts to impose a travel ban and financial sanctions on the North, saying any U.N. action should focus on bringing its communist neighbor back to talks.\nIn Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said North Korea should understand it had made a mistake but "punishment should not be the purpose" of any U.N. response.\nU.N. action "should be conducive to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula ... and the resumption of the talks," he told reporters. "It's necessary to express clearly to North Korea that ... the international community is opposed to this nuclear test."\nJapan is imposing its own new sanctions against North Korea. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party approved several harsh measures Thursday, including limits on imports and a ban on all North Korean ships in Japanese waters.\nRussian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said a high-level Chinese representative was en route to Moscow for talks Friday and Saturday, and Russia's deputy foreign minister is in the region.\n"So there is a lot of diplomatic activity going on and we hope it will produce a good product," he said.\nA special envoy of Chinese President Hu Jintao met President Bush in Washington on Wednesday, and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun is due Friday in Beijing for talks with China's top leaders, he said.\nLike the original U.S. draft circulated Monday, the new one would condemn the nuclear test, demand that North Korea immediately return to six-party talks without precondition, and impose sanctions for Pyongyang's "flagrant disregard" of the council's appeal. It adds new words demanding that North Korea "not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile."\nIt also would encourage all concerned countries "to intensify their diplomatic efforts to facilitate the early resumption of the six-party talks, with a view to achieving the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and to maintaining peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and in northeast Asia."\nChinese Ambassador Wang Guangya welcomed this addition, which he said was proposed by China.\nThe new draft remains under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which includes a range of measures to deal with threats to international peace and conflicts from breaking diplomatic relations to imposing naval blockades and taking military action.\nWhile China says North Korea should face tough action, it wants sanctions to be limited primarily to the North's nuclear program.\nWang reiterated that sanctions should be limited to the nonmilitary measures authorized under Article 41 of the U.N. Charter, which include economic penalties, breaking diplomatic relations or banning air travel.
(03/30/05 4:25am)
NEW YORK -- Investigators of the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq said Tuesday there was not enough evidence to show that Secretary-General Kofi Annan knew of a contract bid by his son's Swiss employer. However, they criticized the U.N. chief for not properly investigating possible conflicts of interest in the matter.\nAsked if he was planning to step down in a response to the program, Annan replied, "Hell, no."\nThe report released Tuesday also accused the company, Cotecna Inspection S.A., and Annan's son, Kojo, of trying to conceal their relationship after the contract was awarded. It also faulted Kofi Annan for conducting a one-day investigation into the matter, saying it should have been a more rigorous, independent probe.\nThe report's conclusion was not the clear vindication that the secretary-general had wanted, but the investigation led by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker did not accuse the U.N. chief of corruption or any other wrongdoing.\nAlthough Kofi Annan said he accepted that criticism, he was happy with the report's finding that he committed no wrongdoing.\n"After so many distressing and untrue allegations have been made against me, this exoneration by the independent inquiry obviously comes as a great relief," he said.\nAt a press conference after the report was released, Volcker said the investigation found no evidence that Kofi Annan improperly influenced the process by which Cotecna was selected for an inspection contract under the oil-for-food program.\n"Our investigation has disclosed several instances in which he might, or could have become aware, of Cotecna's participation in the bidding process," Volcker said. "However, there is neither convincing testimony to that effect nor any documentary evidence."\n"Taking all of this into account, the committee has not found the evidence reasonably sufficient to show that the secretary-general knew that Cotecna had participated in the bidding process in 1998," Volcker said.\nKojo Annan worked for Cotecna in West Africa from 1995 to December 1997 and was a consultant for the firm until the end of 1998, when it won the oil-for-food contract. He remained on the Cotecna payroll until 2004 on a contract to prevent him from working for a competitor in West Africa.\nAlthough Tuesday's report found no wrongdoing by Kofi Annan, it clearly faulted the secretary-general's management of the world body and his oversight of the oil-for-food program.\nThe $64 billion oil-for-food program was the largest U.N. humanitarian aid operation, running in 1996-2003. Saddam Hussein's government was allowed to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods as an exemption from U.N. sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.\nIn a bid to curry favor and end sanctions, Saddam allegedly gave former government officials, activists, journalists and U.N. officials vouchers for Iraqi oil that could then be resold at a profit. U.S. congressional investigators say Saddam's regime may have illegally made more than $21 billion by cheating the program and other sanctions-busting schemes.\nThe report is the second issued by Volcker's team. It coincides with allegations of sex abuse by U.N. peacekeepers and of sexual harassment and mismanagement by senior U.N. staff, and it comes a week after Kofi Annan called for the biggest overhaul of the United Nations in its 60-year history.
(03/22/05 3:58am)
UNITED NATIONS -- Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged world leaders Monday to implement the boldest changes to the United Nations in its 60-year history by expanding the size of the Security Council, writing a new definition of terrorism and strengthening protections for human rights.\nIn a speech to the 191-member U.N. General Assembly, Annan called for adopting his entire reform package at a summit of world leaders in September, and he warned countries against treating the list of proposals "as an a la carte menu, and select only those that you especially fancy."\nBut getting leaders to agree on the package will not be easy because many countries have opposing views on issues ranging from reform of the powerful Security Council to creation of a new Human Rights Council to increasing development assistance to poor countries.\nThe timing of Annan's appeal also raised some questions, coming just before former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker releases the results of an investigation into the activities of Annan and his son, Kojo, in relation to the scandal-ridden U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq. Kojo Annan worked in Africa for a company that had an oil-for-food contract.\nAsked at a news conference how he believed the United States would respond to the report, Annan said he hoped all countries would find its suggestions in their interests.\n"I think there are many things in the report that should please many states including the United States," he told reporters. "You have to understand that we have 191 member states and I was dealing with the problems of all regions"
(02/04/05 4:24am)
NEW YORK -- A sweeping investigation of the U.N. oil-for-food program accused program chief Benon Sevan of a conflict of interest, saying Thursday his conduct in soliciting oil deals was "ethically improper and seriously undermined the integrity of the United Nations."\nAlthough Sevan said he never recommended any oil companies, the investigation led by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker concluded that he repeatedly solicited allocations of oil from Iraq under the program and "created a grave and continuing conflict of interest."\nVolcker also said there was "convincing and uncontested evidence" that the selection of the three U.N. contractors for the oil-for-food program -- Banque Nationale de Paris, Saybolt Eastern Hemisphere BV and Lloyd's Register Inspection Limited -- did not conform to the established financial and competitive bidding rules.\nSevan denied any wrongdoing, the report said, but it added that evidence from Iraqi officials contradicted those denials. However, a summary of the report's findings did not accuse Sevan of any criminal actions.\nVolcker's committee said it investigated allegations that Sevan, while executive director of the oil-for-food program, requested oil allocations from the Iraqi government on behalf of the African Middle East Petroleum Co. Ltd. Inc., a Swiss-based oil trading company known as AMEP.\nThe committee concluded that Sevan solicited and received several million barrels of allocations on behalf of AMEP in 1998-2001. Those allocations generated $1.5 million in revenues, the report said.\nThose solicitations "presented a grave and continuing conflict of interest, were ethically improper, and seriously undermined the integrity of the United Nations," the report said.\nThe report said Sevan "was not forthcoming to the committee when he denied approaching Iraqi officials and requesting oil allocations on behalf of AMEP."\nIn a separate investigation by U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer, allegations surfaced that Sevan may have personally profited by receiving vouchers to sell Iraqi oil. According to the Duelfer report -- which got its information from the former Iraqi oil ministry -- Sevan allegedly received vouchers for 7.3 million barrels of oil through various companies and representatives that he recommended to Iraqi ministries.\nThe financial take would have been in the range of $700,000 to $2 million, depending on oil prices.\nThe oil-for-food program, launched in December 1996 to help ordinary Iraqis cope with U.N. sanctions imposed after Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, quickly became a lifeline for 90 percent of the population.\nUnder the program, Saddam's regime could sell oil, provided the proceeds went primarily to buy humanitarian goods and pay reparations to victims of the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's government decided on the goods it wanted, who should provide them and who could buy Iraqi oil. But the Security Council committee overseeing sanctions monitored the contracts.\nThe program ended in November 2003, after the U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam. Allegations of corruption first surfaced in late 2000, with accusations that the Iraqi leader was putting surcharges on oil sales and pocketing the money.\nThe report by Volcker's committee said the budgeting, accounting, auditing and administration of the program was relatively disciplined, although there were isolated violations.
(11/03/04 4:44am)
UNITED NATIONS -- Challenged by the U.N. nuclear chief to prove their atomic programs are peaceful, North Korea said it would scrap its "nuclear deterrence" if the United States ended its hostile policy and Iran said negotiations with three European countries may "bring fruit."\nNorth Korea's deputy U.N. ambassador Kim Chang Guk on Monday totally rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency, calling it "a political tool of the superpower." He also accused Japan of allowing U.S. nuclear weapons on its soil and South Korea of nuclear ambitions.\nIran's deputy U.N. ambassador Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi was less strident, but stressed that Tehran "is determined to pursue its inalienable rights to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." He also criticized the international community for targeting Iran's nuclear program while saying nothing about Israel's.\nIAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei challenged both countries in his annual report to the U.N. General Assembly, urging Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program "as a confidence building measure" and North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program or at least allow inspections to ensure it is "exclusively peaceful."\nHe expressed hope that Iran will decide to suspend enrichment before the IAEA board meets in Vienna, Austria on Nov. 25. Britain, Germany and France have warned that most European countries would back the United States' call to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council if the Iranian government does not abandon all enrichment activities before the board meeting.\nUranium enriched to a low level can be used to produce nuclear fuel for electricity-generating plants, but if enriched further can be used to make atomic weapons. Iran is not prohibited from enriching uranium under its obligations to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but is barred from arms-related work.\nDanesh-Yazdi said Iran has a right "to develop, research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." But he told the General Assembly Tehran has voluntarily suspended enrichment activities since last November.\n"Iran is also currently engaged in negotiations with France, Germany and Britain to reach mutual objective assurances on nuclear cooperation, transparency and non-diversion" of nuclear material, he said. "These negotiations will bring fruit if mutual understanding, political will and good faith prevail."\nIranian President Mohammad Khatami delivered the same message Tuesday in Tehran, telling reporters it was possible Iran would continue suspension of uranium enrichment and that he was hopeful of a compromise with Europe over its nuclear program.\n"Both sides have shown essential flexibility and I am not pessimistic over the continuation of talks and achieving a result," Khatami said after a parliament session.\nThe talks with the Europeans aim at averting a standoff over Iran's nuclear weapons program at the Nov. 25 meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog. The third round of talks is to be held on Friday. The Europeans have offered Iran a trade deal and peaceful nuclear technology in return for assurances Iran would indefinitely stop enriching uranium.\nAt the moment, there aren't any negotiations taking place on North Korea's program.\nElBaradei said he was frustrated that six-nation talks involving the United States, China, Russia, Japan and the two Koreas were not moving faster.\nThe goal is to negotiate a deal for the communist regime to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs in exchange for economic help and security guarantees. The process is at a standstill because North Korea refused to show up for talks scheduled for September.\n"I'm telling the North Koreans again that the international community is ready to look into your security concerns, ready to look into your economic and humanitarian needs," ElBaradei told reporters. "But a prerequisite is for them to commit themselves to full, verifiable, dismantlement of their weapons program -- as they say they have a weapons program."\nNorth Korea's Kim blamed the United States for the nuclear problem on the Korean peninsula, dismissed the IAEA, and said "it is a political military question to be settled" between Pyongyang and Washington.\nNorth Korea has made it clear that if the United States "renounces its hostile policy ... including (its) nuclear threat, (North Korea) is willing to scrap its nuclear deterrence accordingly," Kim said, stressing his country's commitment "to the ultimate goal of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."\nAfter about 20 speeches, the General Assembly voted on a resolution supporting the IAEA's "indispensable role" in promoting the peaceful uses of atomic energy "and in nuclear safety, verification and security." The vote was 123-1, with only North Korea opposing the resolution.
(10/06/04 4:25am)
UNITED NATIONS -- The top U.N. envoy to Sudan said Tuesday the Sudanese government has failed to improve security for the embattled people in Darfur or brought to justice the perpetrators of atrocities during the 19-month conflict.\nJan Pronk accused the government and rebels of continuing to violate an April cease-fire, with the army attacking, sometimes with helicopter gunships and the rebels often directing their fire at police. But he said "there are signs of improvement on the political front."\nIn an open briefing to the U.N. Security Council on two reports by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Pronk called for a beefed-up African Union force with a greatly expanded mandate "in the coming weeks."\n"It can help to protect the people by being present over a wide area, by being seen, by acting as a deterrent," he said.\nPronk reiterated that the conflict in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, which has killed over 50,000 people and forced 1.4 million to flee, is "the worst humanitarian crisis of today."\nHe warned that failure to resolve it "could create the conditions for a widening regional or even global confrontation," and called for progress in separate political talks this month on Darfur and on ending the 21-year civil war in southern Sudan.\nSudan's Arab-dominated government is accused of mobilizing Arab tribal fighters for attacks on Darfur's villagers, in retaliation for uprisings launched by two non-Arab Darfur rebel movements in February 2003. Sudan denies any responsibility and says it has disarmed some of the Arab militiamen, known as Janjaweed.\nCalling for "a comprehensive political solution" in Sudan, Pronk said agreements already negotiated to resolve the war in the south should be used as the basis to solve conflicts in Darfur and elsewhere in the country.\nHe urged the international community to put pressure on Sudan to change its policies and bring into the political process rebel movements, tribal leaders, opposition groups, civil society, women's groups and the younger generation that will have to build a new Sudan.\n"Aim not at regime change but at regime character change," Pronk told the 15-member council and an audience from many nations.\nSudan's U.N. Ambassador Elfatih Mohamed Erwa told reporters afterward that "what I understand is that you have to set up new agreements and new rules for the way to govern Sudan, which is diverse."\nIn his report on Darfur, the secretary-general said the government made "no further progress" in September in key areas essential to restoring security including implementing a cease-fire, stopping attacks on civilians, disarming militias, and persecuting the perpetrators of atrocities.\n"It is clear that the cease-fire is not holding in many parts of Darfur," he said.\nAnnan also noted that government efforts in August to improve security in camps where Sudanese have taken refuge, to deploy additional police, and to lift restrictions to humanitarian relief had "not been reversed" in September.\nBut Pronk told the council on Tuesday that this was "not good enough."\n"There was no systematic improvement of people's security and no progress on ending impunity," he said. "In September, on security, ... there were still breaches of the cease-fire from both sides, attacks and counterattacks, revenge and retaliation. ... (and) the government still fails to bring the perpetrators of atrocities to justice."\nErwa called Annan's assessment, which was reiterated by Pronk, "a balanced one."\nHe said there was "no reverse because the government is still committed" but the situation "didn't improve because there were certain security problems," citing the continuing attacks and counterattacks.\n"If we observed the cease-fire, I think there would be a better security environment that would let the commitments of the government regarding security to be implemented," Erwa said.\nBut U.S. deputy ambassador Stuart Holliday said "It's particularly troubling that the cease-fire violations continue on both sides"
(09/29/04 4:59am)
UNITED NATIONS -- North Korea said it has turned the plutonium from 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods into nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent against increasing U.S. nuclear threats and to prevent a nuclear war in northeast Asia.\nWarning that the danger of war on the Korean peninsula "is snowballing," Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon provided details Monday of the nuclear deterrent that he said North Korea has developed for self-defense.\nIn Washington, a State Department official said the administration takes Choe's claim seriously but added that it is impossible to verify in the absence of independent inspectors at North Korea's nuclear sites.\nThe official, asking not to be identified, noted that the administration has said previously that North Korea has enough plutonium for the manufacture of several nuclear bombs.\nChoe told the U.N. General Assembly's annual ministerial meeting that Pyongyang had "no other option but to possess a nuclear deterrent" because of U.S. policies that he claimed were designed to "eliminate" North Korea and make it "a target of preemptive nuclear strikes."\n"Our deterrent is, in all its intents and purposes, the self-defensive means to cope with the ever increasing U.S. nuclear threats and further, prevent a nuclear war in northeast Asia," he told a news conference after his speech.\nThe United States has said it has no plans to attack the communist country.\nIn his General Assembly speech and at the press conference with a small group of reporters, Choe blamed the United States for intensifying threats to attack the communist nation and destroying the basis for negotiations to resolve the dispute over Pyongyang's nuclear program.\nHe said North Korea is still ready to dismantle its nuclear program if Washington abandons its "hostile policy" and is prepared to coexist peacefully.\nAt the moment, however, he said "the ever intensifying U.S. hostile policy and the clandestine nuclear-related experiments recently revealed in South Korea are constituting big stumbling blocks" and make it impossible for North Korea to participate in the continuation of six-nation talks on its nuclear program.\nNorth Korea said earlier this year that it had reprocessed the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and was increasing its "nuclear deterrent" but did not provide any details.\nChoe was asked at the news conference what was included in the nuclear deterrent.\n"We have already made clear that we have already reprocessed 8,000 wasted fuel rods and transformed them into arms," he said, without elaborating on the kinds or numbers.\nWhen asked if the fuel had been turned into actual weapons, not just weapons-grade material, Choe said, "We declared that we weaponized this."\nSouth Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck said in late April that it was estimated that eight nuclear bombs could be made if all 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods were reprocessed. Before the reprocessing, South Korea said it believed the North had enough nuclear material to build one or two nuclear bombs.\nThe State Department official said he hadn't seen Choe's comments but noted that the Bush administration has long believed North Korea has at least one or two nuclear weapons. The official, asking not to be identified, said the North Koreans also have made a number of conflicting statements about how far along their weapons development programs have come.\nThe crisis erupted in 2002 when the United States accused North Korea of running a secret nuclear weapons program. The United States, the two Koreas, Japan, China and Russia since have held three rounds of talks about curbing the North's nuclear ambitions, but have produced no breakthroughs.\n"If the six-party talks are to be resumed, the basis for the talks demolished by the United States should be properly set up and the truth of the secret nuclear experiments in South Korea clarified completely," Choe told the General Assembly.\nSouth Korea disclosed recently that its scientists conducted a plutonium-based nuclear experiment more than 20 years ago and a uranium-enrichment experiment in 2000. It denied having any weapons ambitions, and an investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency is under way.\nChoe told the press conference that North Korea wants an explanation because Pyongyang believes it is impossible that such experiments took place "without U.S. technology and U.S. approval."
(09/21/04 4:41am)
UNITED NATIONS -- Poverty is "the most destructive weapon of mass destruction," Brazil's president said Monday as world leaders spotlighted the growing gap between rich and poor and the often devastating impact of globalization on millions of people trying to eke out a living.\nMore than 50 heads of state and government, including Presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Jacques Chirac of France, are in New York on the eve of the annual U.N. General Assembly ministerial meeting to focus on innovative ways to finance the alleviation of poverty and to ensure that millions of the world's poor don't get left behind by globalization.\nSilva told a high-level meeting that "fair globalization must begin with the right of everyone to a job."\n"Dignified work, like the fight against hunger, cannot wait," he said. "The most destructive weapon of mass destruction today is poverty."\nChirac, also a keynote speaker, said he and Silva had decided to propose new approaches to "ensure that the world's unprecedented wealth becomes a vehicle for the integration, rather than exclusion, of the most underprivileged."\n"It is up to us to give globalization a conscience," he said. "There is no future in globalization that tolerates predatory behavior and the hoarding of its profits by a minority. There is no future in globalization that destroys the social and economic balances, crushes the weak and denies human rights."\nAnother high-level session Monday afternoon -- the brainchild of Silva -- is focusing on financing the fight against poverty.\nThe meetings are expected to help set the stage for next year's summit that the General Assembly is holding to assess progress toward meeting the goals that world leaders agreed on at the 2000 Millennium Summit. They include halving the number of people living in dire poverty, ensuring that all children have an elementary school education, that all families have clean water, and that the AIDS epidemic is halted -- all by 2015.\nMonday's morning session focused on a report by a U.N. commission that said the income gap between the richest and poorest countries has widened in the past four decades.
(10/17/03 4:37am)
UNITED NATIONS -- In a diplomatic victory for the United States, the 15-member Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Thursday aimed at attracting more troops and money to stabilize Iraq and putting it on the road to independence.\nThe vote bolstered U.S. efforts to win credibility for its rebuilding effort in Iraq and to ease the burden of American forces there. But at a summit in Brussels, some European leaders ruled out any immediate commitments of financial or military aid.\nU.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called the vote "a great achievement."\nThe resolution authorizes a multinational military force in Iraq under a single command led by the United States, and calls for troop contributions and "substantial" financial pledges from the 191 U.N. member states.\nIt also makes clear that the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq is temporary and states that "the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly." It calls for the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council to give the Security Council a timetable for drafting a new constitution and holding elections by Dec. 15.\n"We have come together to help the Iraqi people and put all of our differences of the past in the past," Powell said.\nSpeaking in Washington, Powell said the vote sets the stage for an Iraq donors conference next week in Madrid, helping U.S. officials raise money and making it easier for countries to provide peacekeepers.\nHe declined to "put any numbers" on how many would be volunteered, however, and acknowledged opposition by some countries to sending forces.\n"I don't see this vote as opening the door to troops," he said, adding that he did not expect contributions from Russia, Germany or France but hoped they would be helpful.\nIn a joint statement after the council vote, those three nations said they would not commit troops because the resolution failed to give the United Nations a bigger role in Iraq's political transition or speed up the transfer or authority to Iraqis.\nTherefore, "the conditions are not created for us to envisage any military commitment and no further financial contributions beyond our present engagement," the French-German-Russian statement said.\nThey said, the final version of the resolution allowed them to adopt it "in the spirit of unity."\nU.S. officials had been concerned that after six weeks of intense diplomatic campaigning, the resolution might get only the minimum nine "yes" votes needed for adoption.\nThe United States won last-minute backing from France, Germany and Russia.\n"We agreed that the resolution is really an important step in the right direction," Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said after the conference call with presidents Jacques Chirac of France and Vladimir Putin of Russia. "Many things have been included from what we proposed. This led us ... to jointly agree to the resolution."\nThe resolution was not expected to translate into immediate funds and troops.\nEuropean countries are "very far from being able to commit themselves financially or militarily" to the reconstruction of Iraq, said Catherine Colanna, a spokeswoman for Chirac.\nWashington also won backing from China and Pakistan, and finally from Syria, the only Arab nation on the Security Council and a staunch opponent of the U.S.-led war.\nU.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the vote showed the commitment of the Security Council "to place the interests of the Iraqi people above all other considerations.\n"It is critical to the Iraqi people, the region and the entire international community that we succeed in reaching the goal of an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors," Annan said.\nIn Iraq, the U.S.-appointed Governing Council welcomed the resolution as a step toward bringing stability to the war-battered country and ending violence against the American-led occupation.\n"We welcome pumping more funds into Iraq from the donor states and the other states in order to reconstruct the Iraqi economy and combat unemployment," said Mouwafak al-Rabii. "This can be one of the successful means to dry out the cores of terror."\nGermany, France and Russia had announced their decision to vote "yes" after a 45-minute conversation earlier Thursday, in a bid to bring international solidarity to the reconstruction effort.\nPutin, who was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, as a special observer at an Islamic summit, said the leaders had agreed on a common position, but he didn't give details.\nThe United States had focused on Russia in its search for votes after it rejected the French-Russian-German demand for a timetable to restore Iraq's sovereignty. Moscow had taken a more moderate position than France and Germany.\nCouncil diplomats said Washington asked what Moscow wanted and then submitted three amendments Wednesday morning. Less than 12 hours later, the amendments were accepted "99 percent by the sponsors" and included in a fifth draft of the resolution, said Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov.\nThe amendments gave Annan greater scope to participate in drafting a new Iraqi constitution and the political transition, and would state for the first time that the mandate of U.S.-led troops would expire when an Iraqi government is elected.\nFacing rising costs and casualties in Iraq, the Bush administration initially concentrated on getting more countries to provide troops and money to help stabilize and rebuild Iraq.\nFrance, Russia and Germany changed the agenda to the quick restoration of Iraq's sovereignty forcing the United States to make clear it has no intention of remaining an occupying power. The resolution states that "the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly."\nThe United States and Britain never wavered in their assessment that sovereignty can't be relinquished until Iraq drafts a new constitution and holds elections.\nThey agreed to include new provisions urging the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority "to return governing responsibilities and authorities to the people of Iraq as soon as practicable" and calling on the Iraqi Governing Council to provide the Security Council with a timetable for drafting a new constitution and holding elections by Dec. 15.
(05/22/03 1:53am)
UNITED NATIONS -- The United States called for a vote Thursday on a U.N. resolution to let the U.S.-led coalition run Iraq until it has a recognized government and to lift sanctions so the country's oil wealth can be used for reconstruction.\n"We look forward to a vote tomorrow morning," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Wednesday, shortly after the final text was distributed.\nThe Security Council is expected to approve the seven-page resolution, but whether it will get the support of all 15 members, as Secretary of State Colin Powell said he would like, remains to be seen.\n"Our impression is that the council members have welcomed this resolution and that it enjoys strong support, but I would hesitate to predict for you at this moment exactly what the precise vote count is going to be," Negroponte said. "We would welcome the strongest possible statement by the council, and if consensus were possible that would be very desirable."\nThe resolution's co-sponsors -- the United States, Britain and Spain -- made more than 90 changes from the original draft introduced May 9 to respond to concerns of other council members, said Negroponte's spokesman, Richard Grenell. "The text is final and we are asking delegations to stand and be counted."\nDiplomats said the resolution was virtually certain to get 13 "yes" votes -- including France's vote -- in the 15-member council, with only Russia and China's votes in question.\n"I expect it to be an overwhelming majority, if not unanimous," said Bulgaria's Ambassador Stefan Tafrov. Angola's Ambassador Ismael Gaspar Martins called it a "good draft" and said consensus "looks likely." German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said, "I think we are on a good way to a possible consensus resolution."\nMany council members had complained the resolution predicted no end to the U.S. and British occupation of Iraq. Many also pressed for a bigger role for the United Nations in postwar Iraq -- especially in building a new government -- and for the council to have a significant role in monitoring the country's reconstruction.\nBut Negroponte insisted the United States will not stand for any time limits on how long it can administer Iraq -- a reference to a French suggestion that it be for one year and not open-ended.\nIn a key concession, however, the United States agreed to allow the Security Council "to review the implementation of this resolution within 12 months of adoption and to consider further steps that might be necessary."\nThe previous texts did not call for any U.N. review of the postwar Iraq operation.\nAsked how long the coalition planned to remain in Iraq, Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said, "The occupation will end when there is an internationally recognized representative government. That could happen in three months or six months, or 18 months or 24 months. That is the criterion. Nothing in this resolution sets a time criterion other than that."\nThe resolution would also phase out the U.N. oil-for-food humanitarian program over six months, which would end U.N. control over Iraq's oil income. It would also grant immunity from lawsuits involving oil and natural gas until an internationally recognized government is in place and Iraq's $400 billion debt is restructured.\nUnder the final draft, all frozen Iraqi assets would be transferred to a new Development Fund for Iraq, where its oil revenue will be deposited. But at Germany's request, an exception was added to prevent the transfer of frozen assets with claims against them.\nThe United Nations would be given a stronger role in establishing a democratic government than initially envisioned and the stature of a U.N. envoy in Iraq would be increased under the resolution. But it also leaves the United States and Britain, as occupying powers, firmly in control of Iraq and its oil wealth.\nThe resolution asks Secretary-General Kofi Annan to appoint a special representative with "independent powers" to work with the United States and Britain "to facilitate a process" leading to a democratic government.\nAnnan said Tuesday he will act quickly to make an appointment once the resolution is adopted.\nIraq is still under sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein's regime after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and technically cannot have the punitive trade measures lifted until weapons inspectors declare it free of weapons of mass destruction.\nThe United States led the war against Saddam, charging his regime was hiding chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear arms program from U.N. weapons inspectors. But it has refused to let U.N. teams return to Iraq, deploying its own inspectors instead. No evidence has been uncovered so far.\nThe resolution would lift economic sanctions without certification from U.N. inspectors, but it would also reaffirm "that Iraq must meet its disarmament obligations." It also "underlines the intention of the council to revisit the mandates" of U.N. inspectors.
(04/23/03 5:59am)
UNITED NATIONS -- After staunchly opposing the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein, France made a surprise proposal Tuesday to meet the United States halfway by calling for the immediate suspension of crippling economic sanctions on Iraq.\nU.S. Ambassador John Negroponte stuck by President Bush's demand that because of "the dramatically changed circumstances within Iraq," sanctions should be lifted entirely -- not just suspended.\n"We now need to work with France and other countries to see how best that can be achieved and how quickly."\nStill, the first Security Council meeting on the future of post-Saddam Iraq indicated that deep divisions remain over who should disarm the country and how sanctions should be lifted.\nThe French proposal appeared to take the Russians and Germans, their closest allies in opposing the war, off guard. Neither embraced it, and both strongly supported the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to verify Iraq's disarmament before sanctions are lifted -- which the United States opposes.\n"We should really deal with the situation in Iraq thinking always about the situation of Iraqi people," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Tuesday in the Turkish capital Ankara.\nFrance's U.N. ambassador, Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, also said it was time for the Security Council "to take into account the new realities on the ground" and adopt "a very pragmatic approach" to dealing with Iraq.\n"I have proposed that the decision should be taken to immediately suspend the civilian sanctions," he told reporters.\nThe proposal would suspend the U.N. ban on trade and investment in Iraq along with a flight ban while leaving a 12-year-old arms embargo in place. But it wasn't clear how a suspension could be implemented without an Iraqi government in place.\nThe Security Council imposed sanctions after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and modified them in 1996 with an oil-for-food program that allowed Iraq to sell unlimited quantities of oil to pay for humanitarian goods and reparations for the first Gulf War.\nThe program had been feeding 60 percent of Iraq's 24 million people.\nUnder council resolutions, sanctions cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have been destroyed along with the long-range missiles to deliver them.\nBut the United States has deployed its own inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction -- and Negroponte made clear Tuesday that the Bush administration doesn't want U.N. inspectors to return any time soon.\nChief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said he didn't see "any adversarial arrangement" between his inspectors and the U.S.-led coalition's teams. "We're all interested in finding the truth about the situation, whatever it is," he said.\n"But at the same time I am also convinced that the world and the Security Council ... would like to have inspection and verification which bear the imprint of an independent institution."\nRussian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said his country supported lifting sanctions. But he said Russia wants U.N. inspectors -- the only ones in the world with "expertise" on nuclear, biological, chemical and missile issues -- to certify that Iraq has been disarmed, as required under U.N. resolutions.\nAsked about the French proposal, he said: "We are ready to discuss it."\nGermany's U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger agreed, saying there should be coordination between the U.N. inspectors and U.S. teams.\nDe La Sabliere told The Associated Press he envisioned sanctions being suspended "for a couple of months," and possibly renewed. He also envisions U.S. and U.N. inspectors working together. "And then sanctions could be lifted when a legitimate Iraqi government is in place," he said.\nIn Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the French proposal "may be a move ... in the right direction, some beginning of understanding that the situation is different.\n"But the situation is so much different that there is no need for the sanctions any more, and we need all to look at how they can be lifted, and how the Iraqi people can go back to a normal relationship with the world," he said.
(04/10/03 4:48am)
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council met Wednesday to debate North Korea's withdrawal from the global treaty to curb development of nuclear weapons, with Russia and China opposing any statement condemning the North and the United States pushing for one.\n"We don't believe the condemnation is going to solve the problem," said Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov as he headed into the closed-door meeting. "The only way the problem is going to be solved is direct bilateral dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang."\nSecretary-General Kofi Annan echoed this view, saying on his arrival at U.N. headquarters, "I think the next step really is to get the parties talking and to find a format that will be acceptable to both parties and bring them to the table to talk."\nChina said Tuesday the Security Council has no business discussing North Korea's nuclear program.\n"It is not appropriate for the U.N. Security Council to get involved in these issues," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Beijing.\nTensions on the Korean Peninsula escalated in October, when the United States said North Korea admitted having a secret nuclear program in violation of a 1994 pact. The North then kicked out U.N. nuclear inspectors and announced its intention to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.\nThe International Atomic Energy Agency referred the issue of North Korea's withdrawal to the council in February, saying the North was not complying with nuclear agreements. Pyongyang's withdrawal takes effect today.\nMaurice Strong, who is Annan's special adviser on North Korea, expressed hope Tuesday the Security Council would seek reconciliation in the nuclear standoff between North Korea and the United States rather than risk escalating the crisis by taking a punitive approach.\nHe said he expects the 15 council members to "carefully orchestrate the reconciliation" of their views and not move in the direction of sanctions which the North has said it will consider a hostile act.\nRussia's Lavrov said, "We would like to see the members of the council strongly reiterating their position in favor of a political solution."\nBut diplomats said no action is expected Wednesday because of Chinese opposition.\nThe council likely will issue a very mild press statement saying it discussed the issue, council diplomats said. The United States is expected to make a stronger statement on the council's failure to condemn North Korea's withdrawal.\nStrong said a council decision Wednesday to do nothing "could be a good result" if its members are not ready to act.\n"How it deals with it will send some important signals about the prospects for a peaceful settlement," he said.\nWednesday, North Korea warned Japan against raising tensions in the region, saying Japan was within range of the communist state's missiles.\n"Japan should behave with discretion, clearly mindful that it is also within the striking range of the DPRK," said Pyongyang's official news agency KCNA, using the initials of North Korea's official name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.\nThe news agency charged that Japan's launch of its first spy satellites last month proved there was a revival of "militarism" in Japan. Japan's satellite program was prompted by the 1998 launch of a North Korean Taepodong ballistic missile that flew over Japan and crashed into the Pacific Ocean just short of Alaska.\nMonday, the major Security Council powers -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- failed to agree on a condemnation of the North's nuclear program because of Chinese opposition, diplomats said.\nStrong said China, Russia, the European Union and Annan have been trying get North Korea and the United States to the negotiating table.\nHe said "sufficient progress" has been made in bridging the gap between the sides and that there is no reason for them to delay meeting.\nNorth Korea, meanwhile, warned that any Security Council action against it would undermine attempts to peacefully resolve the crisis. North Korea has warned that it would regard sanctions against its isolated regime as a declaration of war.\nNorth Korea insists on direct talks with the United States on the nuclear dispute and wants a non-aggression pact from Washington. But the Bush administration wants to settle the crisis through multilateral channels, saying North Korea's nuclear programs threaten not just U.S. interests but also those of Russia, China, Japan and South Korea.\nStrong said both sides now agree there need to be both direct talks and multilateral talks and he sees no reason why they cannot be held simultaneously.\nRussia's Lavrov said whatever multilateral format is used must be in addition to a dialogue between the United States and North Korea.\nAccording to Japan's Kyodo news agency, the United States and North Korea held working-level talks over three days last week. Jack Pritchard, U.S. special envoy for Korean peace talks, met with Han Song Ryol, North Korea's deputy permanent representative at the United Nations, Kyodo said.\nSouth Korean President Roh Moo-hyun will meet President Bush on May 14 to discuss a peaceful resolution to the nuclear issue, a statement from Roh's office said Wednesday.
(03/12/03 4:48am)
UNITED NATIONS -- Facing almost certain defeat, the United States and Britain signaled Tuesday they would agree to a short extension of a deadline for Saddam Hussein to disarm or face war.\nA 45-day delay proposed by six swing council nations appeared out of the question, however.\nThe Bush administration had talked of a vote as early as Tuesday, but with France and Russia threatening to veto the current draft resolution, and without the minimum nine "yes" votes, it held up action in the council.\nThe U.S. campaign for votes suffered another blow when a spokesman for Pakistan's ruling party said the country would abstain on the resolution.\nAzeem Chaudhry made the announcement as Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali appealed for Baghdad to be given more time to disarm, saying: "We do not want to see the destruction of the Iraqi people, the destruction of the country."\nWhite House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the U.S.-backed resolution would be put to a vote this week and indicated a readiness to compromise. He said a proposal being floated to push back the March 17 deadline by a month was "a non-starter."\n"There is room for diplomacy here," Fleischer said. "Not much room and not much time."\nHe spoke as Cameroon's Ambassador Martin Belinga-Eboutou was announcing that he and five other ambassadors from key council nations -- Mexico, Chile, Angola, Guinea and Pakistan -- would suggest an even longer deadline of 45 days and the addition of benchmarks that Saddam Hussein would have to meet to avoid war.\nBut a U.S. official discounted the proposal.\n"It's not going anywhere, there's only one resolution on the table," one U.S. official said.\nBoth the United States and Britain, which is under intense pressure at home to get U.N. backing for any military action, said they were willing to negotiate both the deadline and other changes to the resolution.\n"We are busting a gut to see if we can get greater consensus in the council," Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said late Monday. "We are examining whether a list of tests of Iraqi compliance would be a useful thing for the council. It doesn't mean there are any conclusions."\nGreenstock said Tuesday the March 17 deadline could be extended but not by that much.\nBritain is "prepared to look at time lines and tests together, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about action in March. Don't look beyond March," he told CNN.\nUnder the British proposal, Saddam would have 10 days to prove Iraq has taken a "strategic decision" to disarm, which could be done with a series of tests or "benchmarks," council diplomats said.\nIf Iraq makes that decision, a second phase would begin with more time to verify Iraq's full disarmament, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.\nReacting to the possible British compromise, French diplomats said the resolution would still mean authorizing war, which France is unwilling to do. However, the French Foreign Ministry in Paris indicated it was open to new ideas.\n"It's a new development and the future will tell us if it is a significant development," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Francois Rivasseau. "We've indicated we are open to dialogue."\nNonetheless, he stressed that the "red line" set out by France cannot be crossed: "We want no ultimatum. We want no element of automaticity. And we've said we want what the inspectors say taken into account."\nRussia's U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov agreed.\n"We see no reason whatsoever to interrupt the inspections and any resolution which contains ultimatums and which contains automaticity for the use of force is not acceptable to us," he said.\nWhile Washington and London work on a possible compromise, council members agreed to hold another open meeting on the Iraq crisis at the request of the Non-Aligned Movement, which represents about 115 mainly developing countries. Most are opposed to a war against Iraq.\nDiplomats said it would likely delay a vote until Thursday at the earliest.\nThe open meeting will give nations from all parts of the world a chance to voice their views on an issue that has polarized the Security Council. It will also give supporters and opponents of the U.S.-backed resolution more time to lobby.\nPresident Bush was conducting an urgent phone campaign, seeking support from world leaders.\nChinese President Jiang Zemin told Bush that inspections in Iraq should continue and the standoff should be settled without military action, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. Jiang told Bush there was "no need for any new resolution," said spokesman Kong Quan.\nIn the anti-war camp, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin had traveled to Africa to meet with the leaders of Angola, Guinea and Cameroon -- three important swing votes on the council.\nJapan has begun lobbying the undecided council members to urge support for the U.S.-backed resolution, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. In one call, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told Mexican President Vicente Fox that international divisions were putting the United Nations' authority at stake, the ministry said.\n"Mexico is taking an independent position and is not leaning to either side," Fox said.\nThe current draft resolution -- which authorizes war any time after March 17 unless Iraq proves before then that it has disarmed -- requires nine "yes" votes. Approval also requires that France, Russia and China withhold their vetoes -- either by abstaining or voting in favor.\nThe United States is assured the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico believed leaning toward the U.S. position. With Germany, Syria and now Pakistan preparing abstentions or "no" votes, Washington is left trying to canvass the support of Chile, Angola and Guinea.
(03/11/03 4:59am)
UNITED NATIONS -- Days away from a U.N. vote that could lead to war in Iraq, France and Russia said Monday that they would oppose the U.S.-backed resolution setting a March 17 ultimatum for Saddam Hussein, a strong indication the measure could face defeat.\nNeither Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov nor French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said explicitly that they would veto the resolution if necessary, but their forceful words strongly hinted that they would.\nThe two ministers, who oppose the rush to war and want Iraq peacefully disarmed, spoke as the rival camps led by the United States and France stepped up lobbying of a handful of undecided Security Council members whose votes could be crucial.\nU.S. Ambassador John Negroponte told the council Friday to be prepared to vote as early as Tuesday. But Chile's U.N. Ambassador Gabriel Valdes, whose country is in the undecided camp, said "I dont think there will be a vote tomorrow."\nDe Villepin met top Angolan officials Monday at the start of a quick trip to lobby three undecided African members of the council that will also take him to Cameroon and Guinea. Angola's Foreign Minister Joao Miranda would not say whether his country would support the resolution.\n"It's not my job to say what the Angolan position is," de Villepin said in the capital, Luanda. "We won't let a resolution that could open the way to war pass in the Security Council." But some observers said that despite such words, Paris would be hesitant to block a resolution if it has broad backing.\nAfter listening to the latest reports Friday from top U.N. weapons inspectors, Russia's Ivanov said Monday "we did not hear serious arguments for the use of force to solve the Iraqi problem"
(02/27/03 7:29pm)
UNITED NATIONS -- As fresh signs emerged that the United States is making headway in winning support for military action against Iraq, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix provided the Bush administration with new ammunition Wednesday, saying Baghdad has not provided evidence of "a fundamental decision" to disarm.\nBlix welcomed Iraq's recent letters that contained new information about its weapons programs but said they did not represent "full cooperation or a breakthrough." Nonetheless, he noted that inspections resumed only in November after a four-year break and asked: "Is it the right time to close the door?"\nThe chief inspector's comments came hours before he delivered a 16-page written report on the progress of inspections and Iraq's cooperation to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who will then send it to the Security Council. Blix handed it in three days before the Saturday deadline.\nSaturday is also the deadline Blix has set for Saddam Hussein to begin destroying Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missiles, their engines and components for exceeding a mandated 93-mile limit. Blix's report and Iraq's decision on the missiles are expected to be influential in whether the council supports a U.S.-backed resolution that would pave the way to war.\nMexico appeared to be the first among the undecided council members to shift toward the U.S. position, and an important Russian lawmaker, Mikhail Margelov, said Wednesday he doesn't believe his country would veto the resolution.\nBut the United States still faces an uphill struggle to win the nine "yes" votes and avoid a veto by France, China or Russia. It is now assured of British and Spanish support, and will likely get Bulgaria's and Mexico's votes.\nEven British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington's closest ally, faced a major revolt Wednesday by members of his own Labor Party who oppose war now, though he won support in Parliament for his handling of the crisis.\nThe council meets Thursday for its first closed-door discussion on the resolution and a rival French-Russian-German proposal to beef up inspections and continue them for at least four months.\nIn advance of the meeting, opponents and supporters of quick military action lobbied council members in New York and capitals around the world.\nU.S. Ambassador John Negroponte held a meeting late Wednesday with the 10 non-permanent council members. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a firm opponent of war, met in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said Moscow opposes any resolution that would trigger military action.\nMexico's shift came after President Bush placed a weekend phone call to Mexican President Vicente Fox, and after senior U.S. officials made numerous visits to the country.\nMexico had been one of the most outspoken supporters of continued weapons inspections, but Fox shifted his policy in an address Tuesday. The new policy was then outlined in a foreign policy directive obtained by The Associated Press. Mexico's U.N. Mission refused to comment on the new directive.\nWashington and London want a vote on the resolution in mid-March. That would be after Blix and nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei next brief the council, expected March 7.\nBlix said Wednesday an important test of Iraq's cooperation will be whether Iraq complies with his order to start destroying the Al Samouds.\nIraq says the missiles don't exceed the limit and has asked for technical talks, but Blix has said the issue is not negotiable.\nThe Al Samoud "is a very important matter because there is a program that involves a lot of hardware, a lot of valuable hardware, so a positive response to that is an important thing, and I hope we will have it in time," he said.\nHe said letters from Iraq about two R-400 aerial bombs -- one of which may be filled with a biological agent -- and the finding of handwritten documents on the 1991 disposal of chemical and biological weapons "are potentially interesting" and will have to be examined.\nAsked whether there was any evidence that Iraq wants to disarm, he said, "I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision, but there is some evidence of some increased activity."\nIn an attempt to reconcile the bitter differences between the two camps, Canada circulated a proposal Tuesday suggesting that Iraq be given until the end of March to complete a list of remaining disarmament tasks identified by inspectors.\nBut the United States rejected it, saying a decision on military force cannot be delayed. Supporters of continued inspections were also unhappy, with French diplomats objecting to the deadline and the German government saying it saw "no need for any kind of compromise"
(02/26/03 6:38am)
UNITED NATIONS-- Iraq is providing new information about its weapons and has reported the discovery of two bombs, including one possibly filled with a biological agent -- moves that the chief U.N. weapons inspector said Tuesday signal real cooperation.\nPresident Bush, however, predicted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would try to "fool the world one more time" by revealing the existence of weapons he has previously denied having. He urged the United Nations to back U.S. action against Iraq.\nWith the Security Council deeply divided, Canada stepped forward Tuesday with a plan to reconcile differences between a U.S.-British-Spanish resolution seeking U.N. authorization for war, and a French-Russian-German proposal to strengthen weapons inspections and continue them at least into July.\nCanada, which isn't on the council, circulated a document to council members proposing a series of benchmarks Iraq would have to meet by the end of March. The council would then be asked to vote on whether Iraq was complying with its U.N. obligations, diplomats told The Associated Press.\nThe Canadian ideas were well received by some of the swing voters the United States is trying to court, but it was unclear how the five veto-holding powers would react. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte seemed to reject the concept Monday when he said the only benchmarks Iraq had to meet were in Resolution 1441, which the council approved in November.\nBush said Tuesday it would be helpful to get U.N. backing for war, "but I don't believe we need a second resolution."\nThe United States and Britain, which introduced the new resolution Monday, maintain they already have U.N. authorization to attack Iraq. The November resolution gave Iraq a final opportunity to disarm or face "serious consequences."\nBut British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar face strong opposition at home to a war without the approval of a new resolution.\nThe vote, expected in mid-March, could well be influenced by whether Iraq complies with an order last week from chief inspector Hans Blix to begin destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles by Saturday because they exceed the 93-mile limit in U.N. resolutions.\nSaddam hinted in an interview with CBS's Dan Rather that he might not destroy the missiles, repeating Iraq's position that they don't exceed the limit.\n"We have no missiles outside the specifications of the United Nations, and the inspection teams are here and they're looking," the Iraqi leader said.\nBlix, however, said the issue was not open for debate.\nDespite Saddam's remarks, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz insisted Tuesday that no decision had been reached on the missiles.\nSaturday is not only the deadline for Iraq to begin the demolition, it is also the date by which Blix must submit his next written report to the Security Council. Blix is then due before the council on March 7 with U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei.\nBlix has said in previous reports that Iraq was cooperating more on the process of inspections than on the substance of its weapons of mass destruction programs.\nBut he said Tuesday that Iraq had provided inspectors with half a dozen letters containing new information on weapons, including two R-400 aerial bombs. Blix said one of the bombs was "likely to be filled with biological stuff, it's a liquid that appears to be biological."\nHe gave no other details, but R-400 aerial bombs can be filled with biological or chemical agents.\nHe also said Iraq had also reported finding handwritten documents on the disposal of "prohibited items in 1991."\n"There are pieces of evidence that are coming forward, but we still have to see this evidence," he told The Associated Press.\n"This is cooperation on substance," Blix told AP. "Substance is if you find weapons, you can destroy it. If you find documents, it may constitute evidence. That's not process."\nWhite House spokesman Ari Fleischer called the Iraqis' discovery "the very nature of the problem with Iraq -- that all of a sudden (it) will start to discover weapons" it said it never had.\nGetting approval for the U.S.-British-Spanish resolution will be a daunting task, and lobbying by both camps was already in high gear.\nTo pass, the resolution must have nine "yes" votes and avoid a veto by France, Russia or China, which has announced support for the French-Russian-German plan. The sponsors of the plan say it can be implemented without a new resolution.\nOnly Bulgaria is now considered in the U.S.-British-Spanish camp. The 11 other council members, to varying degrees, back continued inspections.\nUndersecretary of State John Bolton, on a trip to Moscow, said Tuesday that he had not won Russian support for the resolution but held out hope that Moscow's position might change. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, an opponent of the war option, will visit Moscow for talks with President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.\nThe 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council -- whose votes are crucial to both sides -- met Tuesday afternoon with France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere at Chile's U.N. Mission. They are expected to meet with Negroponte Wednesday, council diplomats said.
(02/20/03 6:44am)
UNITED NATIONS -- Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix is likely to order the destruction of Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missiles after experts determined their range exceeds U.N. resolutions, U.N. sources and diplomats said Wednesday.\nBut he still must decide what to do about illegally imported rocket engines for the Al Samoud and casting chambers for missile motors that previous inspectors destroyed but Baghdad repaired and reactivated, sources and diplomats said on condition of anonymity.\nBlix is expected to send a letter to Iraq in the coming days with his decisions.\nThis week, U.N. inspectors have visited numerous missile-related sites throughout Iraq. Al Samoud missiles, which exceed the maximum 93-mile range, and related items have been located and tagged for an inventory.\nDestroying the Al Samoud missiles would present a serious dilemma for Iraq, which would be required to give up a valuable weapons system at a time it faces the prospect of a U.S.-led invasion. If Iraq refuses, however, that would likely confirm U.S. and British charges that Baghdad is refusing to disarm.\nThe Iraqis have insisted that the Al Samoud 2 is within the legal limits established by the United Nations and that some of the missiles traveled beyond that range simply because they were tested without warheads or guidance systems, which made them lighter.\nIraq's U.N. Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri said his government would like a joint committee to verify the distance the al-Samoud can fly.\n"The missile experts have determined that the Al Samoud is over the 150-kilometer (93 mile) range, and thus we believe it should be destroyed," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte.\nBlix said he wanted international experts, not just his own, to study the technical issues regarding Iraq's missile programs. He said he also wanted U.N. lawyers to look at the legal side of the matter.\nLast week, the missile experts concluded unanimously that two variants of the Al Samoud 2 were capable of exceeding 93 miles. \n"This missile is therefore proscribed for Iraq," Blix told the council on Friday.\nHe said the experts confirmed that the casting chambers could still be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges "significantly greater" than 93 miles. "Accordingly, these chambers remain proscribed," he said.\nIn January, Blix reported that despite an arms embargo, Iraq had imported 380 rocket engines for the Al Samoud 2 as well as chemicals used in propellants, test instruments, and guidance and control systems.\nHe told the council Friday that since the Al Samoud 2 "has now been assessed to be proscribed any such engines configured for use in this missile system would also be proscribed"
(02/19/03 4:41am)
UNITED NATIONS -- Despite stiff opposition in the Security Council, the United States and Britain still plan to press ahead this week with a new resolution seeking authorization to use military force to disarm Iraq, diplomats from the two allies said.\nThe United States and Britain face an uphill struggle following last Friday's modestly upbeat reports from top weapons inspectors and calls from the overwhelming majority of council members led by France for inspections to continue.\nBuoyed by weekend demonstrations around the world that attracted millions of people, the anti-war forces are likely to get another boost at the debate that starts Tuesday afternoon, when nations that aren't on the 15-member Security Council can express their views on the Iraq crisis.\nThe debate was scheduled at the request of South Africa, which heads the non-aligned movement of 115 mainly developing nations that are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. Sixty countries had signed up to speak by early Tuesday afternoon, and the session is not expected to conclude until Wednesday afternoon.\nSignaling the opposition ahead, French President Jacques Chirac said Monday his country would oppose any effort to draft a new U.N. resolution to explicitly authorize war against Iraq at this time. "There is no need for a second resolution today, which France would have no choice but to oppose," Chirac said.\nOn Tuesday, French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin downplayed the talk that France might use its veto.\nRaffarin said the veto was a "very strategic element" for France that allows Paris to act independently on the world stage. But he said the current strategy on dealing with the Iraq crisis "consisted of maintaining the unity of the international community."\nFrance, Russia and China are pushing to prevent a rush to war and let inspectors do their work while the United States and Britain insist that time has run out for Saddam to disarm peacefully.
(02/06/03 7:17pm)
UNITED NATIONS -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, relying on a stream of U.S. intelligence, urged the U.N. Security Council Wednesday to move against Saddam Hussein because Iraq has failed to disarm, harbors terrorists and hides behind a "web of lies."\nHis extraordinary presentation in the packed council chamber included satellite photographs, intercepted conversations between senior Iraqi officers and statements from informants that could make or break support for going to war with Iraq.\nRussia, France, China and other council members skeptical of the need for a military confrontation said they would review the evidence and demand answers from Baghdad. Most said weapons inspections should continue, Iraq must immediately cooperate and diplomatic efforts should be sought to avert war.\nFrance and Germany went further, calling for strengthening the inspections regime that was already toughened up in November under a Security Council resolution crafted by Washington and adopted by a unanimous council.\nThree months after Iraq pledged that it would disarm, Powell presented his evidence to a high-level audience of foreign ministers and ambassadors in an appearance that was televised live to an anxious world.\n"The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world," Powell said. "This body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will."\nWhile Powell spoke, Iraqi TV carried a day-old interview with Saddam.\nIraqi officials dismissed Powell's case as a collection of "stunts" and "special effects" that relied on "unknown sources" and was aimed at undermining the work of the inspectors.\n"What we heard today was for the general public and mainly the uninformed, in order to influence their opinion and to commit aggression on Iraq," said Lt. Gen. Amir al-Saadi, an adviser to Saddam. Al-Saadi, who spoke in Baghdad, was personally vilified in Powell's speech for deceiving inspectors.\nAddressing the Security Council after all 15 members spoke, Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri dismissed Powell's charges that his country is hiding banned weapons and has links to terrorists.\nPowell's presentation was part of a diplomatic offensive that intensified with President Bush's State of the Union address last week. The administration's next move is to determine whether council members are willing to support a new U.N. resolution specifically authorizing force against Iraq.\nBush has said that the United States -- with or without its allies -- will forcibly disarm Iraq if it does not immediately comply with U.N. resolutions. But winning U.N. approval would mean the United States could share the costs of war and rebuilding Iraq and would be operating with the support of the international community.\nA senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the next 24 to 36 hours will be critical as Powell gauges reaction. The key is France, one administration official said. If President Jacques Chirac insists on vetoing such a resolution, Bush won't seek one.\nFor many at the United Nations, a visit to Baghdad this weekend by the chief weapons inspectors, followed by their next reports to the council on Feb. 14, will be critical for any decision on war.\nPowell told CBS' "60 Minutes II" in an interview that he would be watching the trip closely to see "whether they bring back anything of use for Security Council deliberations" next week. Powell said he is expecting to hear from the inspectors then "whether or not there has been any change in attitude" on the part of the Iraqis.\nBritain, America's closest ally, prefers a second resolution but would join forces with the United States against Saddam without one. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Powell made a "most powerful" case Wednesday. Saddam is "gambling that we will lose our nerve rather than enforce our will," Straw said.\nIn an 80-minute presentation, Powell claimed that Saddam has had a relationship with al Qaeda dating back to the mid-1990s and that Osama bin Laden has an operative in Iraq who sits atop a "sinister nexus" of terror. He didn't provide any evidence of the relationship, however.\nSaddam, in an interview broadcast Tuesday in London, forcefully denied that his government has weapons of mass destruction or a relationship with al Qaeda.\nIn his presentation, Powell asserted that Iraq bulldozed land around a chemical complex in 2002 in order "to conceal chemical weapons evidence" and has hidden mobile biological weapons labs on at least 18 flatbed trucks.\nHans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector said Tuesday that he hadn't found any evidence of mobile labs.\nPowell played audio tapes of what he described as intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi military officers. One was a purported discussion about hiding vehicles from weapons inspectors. Another dealt with removing a reference to nerve agents from written instructions.\nU.S. officials said any evidence revealed Wednesday which could have helped inspectors had already been turned over to them.\nBlix and his colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, told council members at a private lunch after the presentation they would study the details of Powell's report.\nPowell, with CIA Director George J. Tenet at his side, told the council Iraq is working on developing missiles with a range of about 620 miles or more, putting Russia and other nations within Iraq's reach. Under Security Council resolutions, Iraq is banned from having missiles with a range greater than 93 miles.\nThe secretary of state cited informants as saying that Iraqis are dispersing rockets armed with biological weapons in western Iraq.\nHe presented declassified satellite pictures that he said showed 15 munitions bunkers. Powell said four of them had active chemical munitions inside.\nSatellites observed cleanup activities at nearly 30 suspected weapons sites in the days before inspectors arrived, he said.\nPowell presented his case in a rapid-fire delivery, moving from tape recordings to photos and other evidence without pause.\nSome of the evidence, he said, was based on U.S. and foreign intelligence sources and he said the information shows Iraq is deliberately misleading inspectors about its weapons programs.\n"I believe this conclusion is irrefutable and undeniable," he said.\nMost U.S. allies, however, want more time for U.N. weapons inspectors to do their work.\n"As long as there is still the slightest hope for political settlement, we should exert our utmost effort to achieve that," Tang Jiaxuan, China's foreign minister, said after Powell's presentation.\nRussian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov agreed, saying inspections "must be continued."\nDominique de Villepin of France suggested tripling the number of inspectors and placing a full-time monitor in Baghdad to oversee the process. But a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, questioned the usefulness of the French proposal.
(11/14/02 6:15am)
UNITED NATIONS -- Facing a tight deadline and the threat of war, Iraq accepted a tough, new U.N. resolution on Wednesday that will return weapons inspectors to the country after nearly four years. Iraq's U.N. ambassador said his country hadn't placed any conditions on the resolution's terms.\nIn an argumentative and sometimes threatening nine-page acceptance letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri attacked the United States and Britain, the co-sponsors of the resolution, and called the U.N. action unjust and illegal. But he declared nonetheless that Baghdad would abide by the resolution.\n"We hereby inform you that we will deal with resolution 1441, despite its bad contents. … The important thing is trying to spare our people from any harm," Sabri wrote. The letter went on to add that Iraq is "prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable."\nAnnan, speaking to reporters in Washington after a meeting with President Bush, said "we take it that they have accepted" the resolution, clearing the way for an advance team of U.N. inspectors to arrive in Iraq on Monday.\n"Yes, Iraq has accepted," Annan said. But, he added, "the issue is not acceptance but performance on the ground. Let the inspectors go in. I urge the Iraqis to cooperate with them and to perform and I think that is the test we are all waiting for."\nBush said he wouldn't tolerate "deception or denial or deceit" from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and he renewed his warning that if Iraq "chooses not to disarm, we will have a coalition of the willing with us" to do the job.\nBush declined to discuss the letter, though he thanked the U.N. Security Council for passing the U.S.-backed resolution. The Council approved the resolution last Friday and gave Iraq to accept its terms.\n"They had no choice" but to accept, said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Iraqis need to give their full cooperation to the inspectors to bring about complete and verifiable disarmament. Nothing else will do."\nRussian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, whose country is Iraq's closest Security Council ally, said on state-controlled ORT television: "We were confident that Iraq would make this decision, which opens the way for a political resolution of the situation. Now it is important that the international inspectors quickly return to Iraq."\nIn Baghdad, state-run television announced Saddam's acceptance of the Security Council resolution two hours after Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri told the rest of the world.\nIraqi TV showed images of Saddam, in a dark suit and tie, presiding over a meeting of his Revolutionary Command Council, made up of senior military officers. The picture was frozen on the screen while an announcer read the message recounting at length a history of Iraq's dispute with the United Nations.\nIn the letter, Sabri accused Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of fabricating "the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq" by claiming that it had or was on its way to producing nuclear weapons.\nHe also warned inspectors that Iraq will be watching their actions very closely. In 1998, Baghdad accused inspectors of spying for the United States and Israel.\n"Dealing with the inspectors, the government of Iraq will ... take into consideration their way of conduct, the intentions of those who are ill-intentioned among them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people's national dignity, their independence and security, and their country's security, independence, and sovereignty," Sabri said.\nUnder Security Council resolutions adopted after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, U.N. inspectors must certify that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs have been eliminated along with the long-range missiles to deliver them. Only then can sanctions against Iraq be lifted.\nAl-Douri delivered the letter to Annan's office. "There are no conditions, no reservations," contained in the acceptance, he said.\nThe advance team that will arrive in Iraq on Monday will be led by chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix, who is in charge of biological and chemical inspections, and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is in charge of nuclear inspections.\nThe resolution allows inspectors to go anywhere at any time to search for weapons of mass destruction. It also warns that Iraq faces "serious consequences" if it doesn't comply -- and the United States has made clear that an Iraqi failure to cooperate will almost certainly mean a new war.\n"Now, we are not talking about war or military action. We are talking about the mission of inspectors and how to make it a successful one," Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, told CNN. The Arab League had been instrumental is getting Iraq to accept the unconditional return of inspectors and to secure its support for the resolution.\nIn his letter, Sabri urged inspectors to bear in mind that they were starting work during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan when people fast during the day.\nIf the inspectors do their work "professionally and lawfully," Sabri said "the liars' lies" perpetrated by the United States and Britain about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be exposed and the Security Council will then have to lift sanctions.\nSabri said he intends to send another letter stating Iraq's observations on elements in resolution 1441 that Baghdad believes are contrary to international law and the U.N. Charter.\nOn Tuesday, Iraq's parliament recommended that Saddam reject the resolution. Saddam's son, Odai Saddam Hussein, proposed making Arabs part of the U.N. team, echoing a recommendation from the Arab League.\nBlix's office said it has trained inspectors from 49 countries, including six Jordanians, one Moroccan and five Turks. "We don't get too many applications from Arabic countries and we would welcome more applications from people who have the right expertise," one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.\nElBaradei said the IAEA in the past had "many inspectors from many Arab countries" and this was not a problem.\nIn addition to offering Iraq "a final opportunity" to cooperate with inspectors, the resolution extends the possibility of lifting the sanctions.\nBut Iraq must comply with its strict timetable, which now gives Iraq until Dec. 8 to declare all its chemical, biological and nuclear programs. In the meantime, inspectors will have until Dec. 23 to begin their work and must report to the Security Council 60 days later. However, the resolution orders inspectors to immediately notify the council of any Iraqi infraction which could be considered a "material breach," of its obligations to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction.