The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
In response to Mil's query, the two most recent Russian statements of note both avoid mentioning directly a possible Russian veto. See the statements by Sergei Lavrov, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation at the UN, at the Security Council on 26 June 2001; and the statement of 27 June 2001 by Alexander Yakovenko, the Official Spokesman Of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Both are linked to from: http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/gov.html#rus However, note that the Chinese semi-official media seems to be reporting that Russia will veto. Maybe they know something we don't. Eg the report: "Russia will block US-British plan on Iraq" of 26/6 on http://latelinenews.com/ll/english/1079240.shtml "Russia has told its key counterparts on the U.N. Security Council it would reject a U.S.-British resolution to revamp sanctions on Iraq if the measure were put to a vote, diplomats said...... Ivanov stopped short of using the word "veto" but council diplomats said late on Monday it was clear Moscow was threatening to kill the measure." The same source is also uncritically reporting US rumours that China is "secretly backing Moscow's stance". http://latelinenews.com/ll/english/1079378.shtml China's representative at the UN, Wang Yingfan, argued specifically that Iraq needed foreign investment and seems to have openly criticised the US/UK draft. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200106/27/eng20010627_73615.html The language used by both China and Russia seems considerably stronger than I remember being used at the time of 1284. In reply to Colin's point: > Note that the Russian draft makes no provisions for > foreign investment In the Russian draft, this seems to be left to para.8: "Decides further based on the [Unmovic and IAEA] report to consider the termination of all prohibitions against Iraq referred to in its resolution 687 (1991)". Since that report is to be submitted (no more than) 180 days after the arms inspectors draw up an monitoring report - which itself occurs 60 days after their commencement of work in Iraq - it would still mean that Iraq would require a 240 day period of cooperation before the Council could decide to terminate all non-military sanctions and other constraints, including permission for FDI. This, I suppose, is Russia's remaining carrot for WMD disarmament - and something that Russia seems to put considerable emphasis on in the above-mentioned statements. Glen. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email firstname.lastname@example.org Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website: http://www.casi.org.uk