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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Russia - abstention or veto?

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:

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

"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".

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.

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.


This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]