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]
News, 1-8/11/02 (1) 'UNITED NATIONS' MATTERS * Mauritius UN Envoy Recalled for Hesitating on Iraq * A Pas De Deux * Mexico Says Revised UN Iraq Draft Has Deep Support * U.N. allowed Iraqi purchase of agent usable for weapons * New draft allows US to act alone, says Powell * A tiny nation's envoy caught in the crossfire over Iraq * U.N. Council OKs Iraq Resolution8 * D.C. Assurances Secured Syrian Vote * Text of resolution on Iraq NO FLY ZONES * US, British warplanes bomb targets in southern Iraq * Allied Planes Drop Leaflets in Iraq * Four Iraqis wounded in US- British planes; Baghdad amnesty covered releasing 560 Arabs 'UNITED NATIONS' MATTERS http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20021102_173.html * MAURITIUS UN ENVOY RECALLED FOR HESITATING ON IRAQ ABC News, 2nd November UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. ambassador of Mauritius, Jagdish Koonjul, has been recalled by his government because he did not openly back Washington's position on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council, diplomats said on Saturday. The Mauritian foreign minister, Anil Gayan, was quoted as telling reporters that Koonjul had not followed instructions and "gave the impression that Mauritius was against the U.S. drafted resolution on Iraq," according to the Pan African News Agency. Koonjul, a favorite of journalists and many diplomats, left for the Mauritian capital of Port Louis on Friday, diplomats said. Mauritius, an Indian Ocean island nation, is among 10 council members elected for a two year term. Koonjul had not openly opposed the draft U.S. resolution, which had been criticized by several council members, but he did not endorse it publicly either, thereby attracting attention as a sought-after swing vote. At home in Mauritius, his equivocation made headlines after the government said it was backing the United States. Mauritius began its two-year term on the 15-member council in January 2001 as a result of a successful U.S. campaign against the candidacy of Sudan. There was no evidence of U.S. pressure on Mauritius and U.S. officials were not immediately available for comment. President Bush is planning a visit to Mauritius in January. Mauritius receives aid under the U.S. African Growth And Opportunity Act, signed by former President Bill Clinton in his last year of office. Among the terms of the legislation are that a recipient "does not engage in activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests." On Tuesday, Gayan said that he hoped for a compromise in the Security Council where France, Russia and others were asking for amendments in the U.S. text. But he said that if there was no unanimity, "Mauritius would support the draft resolution presented by the United States, subject to some modification proposed by the arms inspectors." http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny vpvai032988141nov03,0,1493467.story?coll=ny%2Dviewpoints%2Dheadlines * A PAS DE DEUX by Justin Vaisse Newsday, 3rd November (Justin Vaisse, a French political scientist and author of several books on U.S. foreign relations, is a fellow at the Center on the U.S. and France at The Brookings Institution.) Why is France getting in America's way at the United Nations? Since George W. Bush addressed the UN Sept. 12, launching a negotiation now in its seventh week, it has seemed as if the only obstacle to UN approval of a resolution to use force against Iraq is Paris' intransigence. American pundits have offered various explanations for the French attitude. Some contend that Paris is just posturing, using its outdated veto power on the Security Council to look powerful to the rest of the world. Others suggest that France is shielding Saddam Hussein from the international community to protect French commercial interests in Iraq. The most narrow-minded explain that the French are acting out of nostalgia for their past glory, or even simply out of jealousy: They can't stand America being the superpower France once was. These commentators are all wrong. Reducing the UN debate to a selfish French quest for narrow national interests hides the real issues: What is the best way to deal with Iraq, what kind of international legitimacy is needed to wage war, and is America accepted as the world's sheriff? This does not mean that France is not pursuing its national interests. Of course it is, as any normal actor in international relations would. For example, its insistence that the Security Council is the only source of legitimacy is not just an expression of France's attachment to international law, but a wise management of its assets: France holds veto power there. But reducing Paris' position to a trivial quest for commercial interests or for glory is the equivalent of anti-American arguments that reduce Washington's Mideast policy to a scheme for securing access to more oil fields or achieving complete domination in the region. Iraq represents only 0.12 percent of French exports. And it sells 9.6 percent of its oil to France, compared with 46.2 percent to the United States. The real divergence between France and America lies in two political questions: How best to deal with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and what legitimacy is needed to declare war on Baghdad. The Bush administration has been ambivalent toward Iraq. Sometimes its policy is one of preventive war and "regime change," sometimes it is just disarmament. The problem is, no matter how moral and desirable regime change is, it has no standing in international law; nor does preventive war. And there are good reasons for this. An international system where these are fair game would be plagued with wars. Why would India not invade Pakistan on the grounds that it is a non-democratic regime harboring terrorists and developing weapons of mass destruction? The French position is that war is legitimate only when defensive or decided by a large consensus of the international community, and that the best vehicle for this, despite its many flaws, remains the UN. Even the Bush administration, for all its talk about the irrelevance of the multilateral body and its threat to go it alone, has deemed it important to obtain a UN mandate - not to please France, but to get other countries with deep reservations on board. This includes Russia and China, also members of the Security Council, both of whom essentially are free-riding, expressing toned-down reservations about unilateral intervention while the French do most of the arguing about principles. Among others, the governments of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Mexico, faced with possible anti-war and anti-American protests, will support military intervention, or at least lend silent consent, only if it is preceded by a serious attempt to disarm Iraq peacefully and if it is the policy of the international community as a whole - that is, sanctioned by a UN mandate - and not if it is a purely American crusade. Polls indicate that the American public also has a strong preference for multilateral action. In a world where order and stability are largely provided by the United States but where world opinion is increasingly resentful of the freedom Washington demands in return for this special responsibility, American policymakers need to heed the words of James Madison in "The Federalist": ". . . independently of the merits of any particular . . . measure, it is desirable . . . that it . . . appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy . . . particularly when the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the . . . opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed." This explains France's strength in this negotiation: It stands for much more than itself, and its position is much closer to that of the rest of the world than Washington's. Paris holds one of the keys to the legitimacy of an armed intervention in Iraq. And, at the end of the day, if peaceful disarmament doesn't work, French forces will end up fighting alongside American forces, as they did in the Gulf War. Money has already been earmarked in the French defense budget for possible operations in Iraq. An argument could even be made that French opposition, although frustrating in the short term for U.S. policymakers, is a valuable asset in the long term. It shows that Washington doesn't impose its choices on the rest of the world. By offering a constructive opposition, by working inside the American order, rather than against it, Paris strengthens U.S. legitimacy. After eight weeks of debate, no one will argue that UN approval is a mere rubber stamp. Of course Bush could bypass the UN and decide to act unilaterally; he has enough domestic support for this, and a case could be made that previous resolutions and Iraqi violations enable him to attack Iraq with some legal authority. After all, France itself took part in the war in Kosovo against Serbia with a tenuous UN mandate. But legality doesn't equate legitimacy. The risk would be to lose key regional allies as well as the support of world opinion, antagonize other countries when the war on terrorism makes their help essential (they wouldn't stop fighting al-Qaida, but might show less zeal to comply with specific demands from Washington), and create a dangerous precedent. And Washington will also need help, or at least tacit support, for its occupation and reconstruction of Iraq after a war; it can win the war on its own, but will need help to win the peace. So what do the French want ? They have been advocating a two-stage process and refuse to pass a resolution that would not give a serious chance for the disarmament of Iraq through inspections. The first stage would be a new mandate for the inspectors, and the second would be a new convening of the Security Council, if Baghdad fails to comply. The council would then authorize war, and this would lend the operation great legitimacy. The French are wary of the intentions of the Bush administration; they know it is divided, and that some in the administration would like to toughen the inspections regime so much that Hussein would never want to comply, giving a pretext to launch a war. This explains the tug-of-war on two issues: the "automatic trigger" that Washington is looking for - that is, only one resolution rather than the two-stage approach - and a series of clauses to make the inspections regime harder for Hussein to foil. It is not hard to guess that Washington and Paris eventually will find a compromise and strike a balance between threatening Hussein enough to prevent him from cheating again, but also making inspections acceptable in order to get his compliance. Secretary of State Colin Powell said late last week that the UN debate would likely be concluded toward the end of next week. Both countries need this resolution: France, because a unilateral action would make the Security Council irrelevant, and America, because an action seen as illegitimate would further antagonize a world that increasingly tends to see it as a hegemon, not as a leader. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/breaking_news/4442043.htm * MEXICO SAYS REVISED UN IRAQ DRAFT HAS DEEP SUPPORT by Fiona Ortiz The State (South Carolina), 3rd November [.....] Castaneda said the revised resolution would give the security council a key role in determining what would happen if Iraq violated conditions established by the United Nations. "A clear relationship is established between any possible future violation by Iraq of the U.N. resolutions and the Security Council. The council must be the one to determine what will happen if weapons of mass destruction are found or if Iraq blocks the work of the inspectors," Castaneda said. The United States has offered to wait until U.N. arms inspectors report any possible violations and the discuss them with the council before launching any military strike, but France wants the council to decide whether a violation exists. Castaneda said the changes in the resolution represented a triumph for the United Nations and for countries that had not been happy with the original wording of the resolution drafted by the United States and Britain. [.....] http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021106-6179116.htm * U.N. ALLOWED IRAQI PURCHASE OF AGENT USABLE FOR WEAPONS by Bill Gertz Washington Times, 5th November The United Nations overruled U.S. government objections and allowed Iraq to buy a specialty chemical that U.S. intelligence officials say will boost Baghdad's chemical and biological warfare agents. A large quantity of a chemical known as colloidal silicon dioxide was ordered by the Iraqis in August 2001 and held up by the U.S. government because of concerns about its use. However, the United Nations approved the sale and it was shipped to Iraq last month, said Hasmik Egin, a U.N. spokeswoman. Colloidal silicon dioxide is used in making commercial products such as glass or electronic circuit boards. But the superfine powder also has a military use. It is a key element in producing what are known as "dusty" chemical or biological weapons, agents that are able to penetrate protective suits, equipment and facilities, U.S. intelligence officials said. "The U.N. is helping the Iraqis to enhance their biological and chemical weapons," said an intelligence official familiar with reports of the chemical sale. The chemical is not contained on the United Nations' list of banned equipment and material known as the Goods Review List (GRL), said Miss Egin, a spokeswoman for the U.N. oil for-food program in Iraq. "If it is not a GRL item, it is up for approval," Miss Egin said in a telephone interview. The initial contact for the colloidal silicon dioxide was "placed on hold" by the U.S. government, Miss Egin said. When additional information on the sale was provided to a special sanctions committee, "that hold was lifted," she said. The first shipment of the chemical was carried out under procedures that have since been changed, she said. The second contract for the chemical was rejected as "noncompliant" with the Goods Review List but is under review by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, known as UNMOVIC, Miss Egin said. The supplier of the chemical and the size of the shipment were not identified. A CIA spokesman declined to comment. According to chemical-weapons specialists, colloidal silicon dioxide, also known as silica sol, has particles so small they are largely unaffected by gravity. As a result, adding the particles to a mixture of chemical or biological agent will enhance the lethality of the agent by making it easier to disperse. Eric Croddy, a chemical- and biological-weapons specialist, said colloidal silicon dioxide is a fine powder that could greatly enhance nerve or toxin weapons. "We know the Iraqis did prepare dusty mustard" agent, Mr. Croddy said. "In the desert, where temperatures reach 104 degrees, they want to make sure their agents don't dissipate in the breeze." Colloidal silicon dioxide would also enhance the killing power of the nerve agent VX, said Mr. Croddy, who is a researcher with the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. "If you have a dust, the agent can get everywhere and can defeat protective gear," he said. Mr. Croddy said the U.S. government knows about the utility of silicon dioxide because it was used in U.S. weapons development in the past. Mr. Croddy said in a recent article that U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that the use of a dusty nerve agent can cause as high as 38 percent fatalities in troops wearing full protective gear. "With a concern that dusty agents might defeat chemical protective masks and garment ensembles, U.S. military researchers subsequently looked to topical skin protectants for additional protection against dusty agents," he said. "Because Iraq has proven artillery systems for chemical delivery, the alleged Iraqi development of a dusty VX formulation further increases the chemical exposure risks to U.S. troops that may be operating in theatre," Mr. Croddy said. A CIA report made public last month stated that Iraq has imported $10 billion worth of goods a year under the U.N. oil-for-food program. Some of the imported goods "clearly support Iraq's military and [weapons of mass destruction] programs," the report stated. "Iraq has been able to import dual-use, [weapons-of-mass-destruction]-relevant equipment and material through procurements both within and outside the U.N. sanctions regime," the report said. The agents in Iraq's arsenal include the chemical nerve agents VX, sarin, cyclosarin and the blistering agent mustard. Its biological and toxin weapons include anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin. http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/06/int6.htm * NEW DRAFT ALLOWS US TO ACT ALONE, SAYS POWELL Dawn, 5th November UNITED NATIONS, Nov 5: The United Nations is close to agreeing a resolution on Iraq that gives Washington scope to act alone if Baghdad blocks arms inspections, US Secretary of State Colin Powell was quoted as saying on Tuesday. He told the French daily Le Figaro he was confident weeks of negotiations in the UN Security Council over the issue were close to a compromise all Council members could live with. The United States has said it expects to submit a resolution this week, intended to give unrestricted access to arms inspectors who will return to Iraq, and hopes for unanimous backing after amending it to meet concerns of other members. Powell said the US resolution would call on the Council to decide action if Iraq did not comply with inspections, but that it would not rule out later action by individual countries. "Whatever the Security Council decides, whether it decides to act or not, the United States and the other countries that feel as it does should not be handcuffed if they consider action necessary," he said. "My colleagues and I have been holding intense discussions for days in the Security Council...we are getting there." President Saddam Hussein has agreed to allow inspectors to return after a four-year absence and in a possible policy shift, said Iraq might comply with a new disarmament resolution as long as it did not "provide a cover for America's ill intentions". http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/06/1036308366071.html * A TINY NATION'S ENVOY CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE OVER IRAQ by Maggie Farley in New York Sydney Morning Herald, from Los Angeles Times, 7th November Missing: one softly spoken, full-bearded Mauritian ambassador with independent views. Last seen leaving a United Nations Security Council meeting without throwing his full support behind a United States resolution on Iraq. May have run foul of perceived US economic pressures in the diplomatic arena. Mauritius has recalled its UN ambassador, Jagdish Koonjul, for not accurately conveying his government's pro-US stance in the Security Council debate over how to disarm Iraq, a senior official from the Indian Ocean nation said this week. The White House was so concerned Mauritius was not squarely behind it that it sent a warning to the capital, Port Louis. The Mauritian response was swift - Mr Koonjul did not show up for his Friday meetings at the UN because he was packing to go home. "We support the US," Mauritius's Foreign Minister, Anil Goyan, declared this week. "Our position is not neutral." Mauritius's concern over solidarity with the US may well have an economic subtext. Some Mauritian officials fear that Mr Koonjul's equivocal stance on the resolution could cost them access to the US market under a recent trade deal that explicitly requires support for US foreign policy. Although the program was a Clinton administration initiative, it illustrates a growing trend of linking economic issues with US foreign policy objectives. Mauritius, an island off east Africa, is not the only Security Council member subject to the political requirements. Cameroon and Guinea also receive trade benefits under the same act, putting these three Francophone nations in the midst of French and US lobbying efforts at the UN. While Mr Koonjul's stance had elevated Mauritius's status as a key swing vote in the council, it did not go down well at home. "Our position on this issue is very clear," Mr Goyan said. "If there is consensus, we will go along. If there is no consensus, we will support the United States and the United Kingdom. The ambassador has been recalled for not following strictly the instructions that were given him." [.....] http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2002/nov/08/110806900.html * U.N. COUNCIL OKS IRAQ RESOLUTION Las Vegas Sun (from AP), 8th November UNITED NATIONS- The Security Council unanimously approved a tough new Iraq resolution Friday, forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm or face "serious consequences" that would almost certainly mean war. The vote came after eight weeks of tumultous negotiations and was seen as a victory for the United States, which drafted the resolution together with Britain. The broad support sends a strong message to Baghdad that the Security Council - divided for years over Iraq - expects full compliance with all U.N. resolutions. "Iraq has a new opportunity to comply with all these relevent resolutions of the Security Council. I urge the Iraqi leadership for sake of its own people...to seize this opportunity and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people," said U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. A breakthrough in negotiations came Thursday when France and the United States reached a critical agreement to address French concerns that the resolution could automatically trigger an attack on Iraq. President Bush, who spurred the council to action with a Sept. 12 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, said it was up to Saddam to cooperate with inspectors. "When this resolution passes, I will be able to say that the United Nations has recognized the threat and now we're going to work together to disarm him," Bush said Thursday. "And he must be cooperative in the disarmament." Chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was preparing to send an advance team to Iraq within two weeks, after a nearly four-year absence. While the United States made some major concessions to critics, the final draft still meets the Bush administration's key demands: toughening U.N. weapons inspections and leaving the United States free to take military action against Iraq if inspectors say Baghdad isn't complying. At the same time, it gives Saddam "a final opportunity" to cooperate with weapons inspectors, holds out the possibility of lifting 12-year-old sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and reaffirms the country's sovereignty. Washington and London spent eight weeks trying to get all 15 Security Council members to approve the resolution to send a united message to Saddam. But Syria, Iraq's Arab neighbor, had been out of reach until Friday. Syria had wanted the vote delayed until after an Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo this weekend. But the United States won in the end, convincing the council to vote Friday. Russia too had remained a holdout, but only in an effort to obtain U.S. concessions. Russia is Iraq's closest ally on the council. The United States had tweaked its draft several times to account for French and Russian concerns over hidden triggers that could automatically launch an attack on Iraq. In a key provision that would declare Iraq in "material breach" of its U.N. obligations, the United States changed wording that would have let Washington determine on its own whether Iraq had committed an infraction. The new wording requires U.N. weapons inspectors to make an assessment of any Iraqi violations. Iraqi state media called the draft resolution a pretext for war and urged the Security Council Thursday not to bow to American demands. "America wants to use this resolution as a pretext and a cover for its aggression on Iraq and the whole Arab nation," the ruling Baath Party newspaper Al-Thawra said Thursday. According to a strict timeline in the resolution, Iraq would have seven days to accept the resolution's terms and 30 days to declare all its chemical, biological and nuclear programs. Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said Iraq might have difficulty making a declaration of its large petrochemical industry in that time, but the United States decided against giving Baghdad more time. Blix has said an advance team of inspectors would be on the ground within 10 days. Inspectors would have up to 45 days to actually begin work, and must report to the council 60 days later on Iraq's performance. Inspectors will have "unconditional and unrestricted access" to all sites, including eight presidential compounds where surprise inspections have been barred. http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=16657352&template=baghdad/indexsea rch.txt&index=recent * INSPECTORS RETURN TO IRAQ NOV. 18 Associated Press, 8th November UNITED NATIONS (AP) An advance team of weapons inspectors will be in Baghdad in two weeks, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix announced Friday. "We are planning to go to Baghdad on Monday, Nov. 18th," Blix said shortly after the Security Council unanimously passed a tough new resolution that expands his powers. Blix said he was pleased with the full council support for the U.S.-drafted resolution. It "strengthens our mandate very much," he said. Blix has said an advance team would be involved mostly with logistics and preparations for resuming full inspections, but that some surprise checks could be done. Under the new resolution, inspectors have 45 days from Friday to begin their work. Inspectors from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission as well as a nuclear team from the International Atomic Energy Agency are mandated to disarm Iraq of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. The inspectors must report any Iraqi infraction immediately to the council for its assessment. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021108_1779.html * D.C. ASSURANCES SECURED SYRIAN VOTE ABC News, Associated Press, 8th November UNITED NATIONS Nov. 8 Syria's state-run radio broadcast a commentary on Friday depicting the pending vote on a new Iraq resolution as part of an American campaign to use force against Saddam Hussein. Hours later, Syria raised its hand and voted "yes" along with the 14 other Security Council members, sending a unanimous message to Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences" and almost certain war. Syria's vote surprised council members. It surprised Iraq, and it surprised Syrians at home. After eight weeks of intense negotiations, there was no doubt that the resolution drafted by the United States and cosponsored by Britain would be adopted with broad support but the prospect of consensus was more dream than reality. Syria had been very critical, insisting that there was no need for a new resolution. So in the pre-vote count Damascus was expected to either vote "no" or not vote at all. But in the end, Syria chose to remain consistent in its Mideast policy rather than support Iraq, a traditional rival. Syria has depended on Security Council resolutions in its diplomatic campaign to force Israel to return the Golan Heights and other land seized in the 1967 Mideast war. Syria's deputy U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad hinted at that when he said for Syria what was important was the "central role of the Security Council." He also said Syria was committed to upholding council resolutions "be they regarding Iraq, the Palestinian cause, or the Arab-Israeli conflict." The first sign that Syria's opposition to the U.S. resolution might be crumbling came on Thursday. For the first time, Mekdad said that if his country's demands were met, Syria would join a consensus. But he wanted voting postponed until Monday after a weekend meeting of Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo and expressed disappointment late Thursday that the council decided to go ahead on Friday. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, intense diplomatic activity was under way at the highest levels, with Syria's U.N. Ambassador Mikhail Wehbe back in Damascus as a point man. Syria's key concerns mirrored those of France and Russia. Syria opposed any language that could automatically trigger an attack on Baghdad. It wanted to ensure that a resolution reaffirmed Iraq's sovereignty, and it wanted a light at the end of the tunnel for Iraq the lifting of U.N. sanctions imposed after Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. France was leading the opposition to the resolution, and when Paris and Washington reached an agreement Thursday afternoon that satisfied all those issues, the diplomatic offensive moved into high gear. France, Syria's closest friend in the West, played a pivotal role in the 24 hours before the vote, helped by the other permanent Security Council members, diplomats said. In the flurry of high-level contacts, the French and Syrian foreign ministers spoke on Thursday. French President Jacques Chirac followed with a call to Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Russian foreign minister phoned his Syrian counterpart and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell sent an "oral message" to Assad, according to a senior U.S. official. An hour before the vote, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov phoned Powell to say Moscow would be voting "yes." That left Syria as the only question mark. As U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte was heading into the council chamber for the 10 a.m. vote, he got word that Syria would be making the vote unanimous, the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. When Mekdad explained Syria's "yes" vote in the council chamber, he said Damascus had received assurances from Washington, London, Paris and Moscow "that this resolution would not be used as a pretext to strike Iraq." In addition, he said, the resolution reaffirmed the Security Council's key role in dealing with Iraq, preserved Iraq's sovereignty, and envisioned a comprehensive settlement of Baghdad's problems with the United Nations. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134572800_iraqtext09.html * TEXT OF RESOLUTION ON IRAQ Seattle Times, 9th November The text of U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 on Iraq that was unanimously approved Friday: Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its president, Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully, Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area, Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people, Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance, Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA, is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions, Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the minister for foreign affairs of Iraq addressed to the secretary-general is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant council resolutions, Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter, Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring states, Commending the secretary-general and the members of the League of Arab States and its secretary-general for their efforts in this regard, Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the council; 3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below; 5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the council 60 days thereafter; 6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq; 7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq: UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available; All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA; UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to presidential sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998); UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programs and the associated research, development, and production facilities; Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient U.N. security guards: UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected; UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed and rotary winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles: UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage; 8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or of any member state taking action to uphold any council resolution; 9. Requests the secretary-general immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA; 10. Requests all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates; including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA; 11. Directs the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution; 12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; 13. Recalls, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; 14. Decides to remain seized of the matter. NO FLY ZONES http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2002-11/07/content_620978.htm * US, BRITISH WARPLANES BOMB TARGETS IN SOUTHERN IRAQ WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 (Xinhuanet) -- US and British warplanes attacked two air defense sites in southern Iraq on Wednesday, the US Central Command said in a statement. Using precision-guided weapons, the allied aircraft bombed two surface-to-air missile systems and a command and control communications center at 6:30 a.m. EDT (11:30 GMT), the Florida-based Central Command said. The two missile systems were positioned near Al Kut, about 100 miles (about 160 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad, and the commandcenter was located near Tallil, about 160 miles (256 kilometers) southeast of the Iraqi capital. The Central Command, which is responsible for US military operations in the Gulf region, said that damage assessment was still under way. The latest strike brought to 54 the total number of days this year when such attacks were carried out by the US and British planes patrolling the so-called "no-fly" zones in Iraq. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2002/nov/08/110807804.html * ALLIED PLANES DROP LEAFLETS IN IRAQ by Robert Burns Las Vegas Sun (from AP), 8th November WASHINGTON- For the third time in six weeks, allied planes dropped tens of thousands of leaflets over southern Iraq urging Saddam Hussein's military not to fire on American and British warplanes. Besides urging the Iraqis not to fire on the fighter jets that patrol southern Iraq nearly daily, the leaflet "emphasizes the consequences that Iraqi military actions are having on the local civilian populace," according to a brief statement issued Friday by U.S. Central Command, whose forces carried out the mission. Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice, a Central Command spokesman, said the second part of that message was intended to convey to Iraqi civilians that they would not have to fear U.S. airstrikes if the Iraqi military were not firing upon allied pilots. Central Command posted images of the leaflets, in English and in Arabic, on its Web site. They are similar to leaflets used in earlier drops over two other southern Iraqi cities on Oct. 27 - Basra and As Samawah. One said, "Before you engage coalition aircraft, think about the consequences." The back of the leaflet said: "Think about your family. Do what you must to survive." Another contained a sequence of images of an Iraqi anti-aircraft battery firing upon an American plane, the plane responding with a missile attack, and the Iraqi position going up in smoke and fire. In Friday's operation, 240,000 leaflets were dropped around the town of Al Amarah, which has been a frequent target of U.S. and British retaliatory strikes in recent weeks. Al Amarah is about 120 miles southeast of Baghdad. The first in a series of leaflet drops was Oct. 3. Before that the most recent leaflet drop had been in October 2001. U.S. and British aircraft have been patrolling two zones over Iraq for a decade in an effort to protect minority Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north from government repression. Baghdad considers the patrol flights violations of its sovereignty, and Iraqi forces regularly try to shoot the planes down. In response, coalition pilots try to bomb Iraqi air-defense systems. The last coalition bombing reported over Iraq was Wednesday, when allied planes fired on two surface-to-air missile systems near the city of Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, and a command and control communications facility near Tallil, about 160 miles southeast of the Iraqi capital. http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021108/2002110815.html * FOUR IRAQIS WOUNDED IN US- BRITISH PLANES; BAGHDAD AMNESTY COVERED RELEASING 560 ARABS Arabic News, 8th November The Iraqi weekly al-Zawra' said yesterday that the general amnesty issued by the Iraqi President by the end of October covered the release of 560 Arab detainees from 12 Arab states, with six of them that were sentenced to death. The weekly which is issued by the Iraqi journalists union added that those who are governed under the general amnesty are distributed on 12 Arab states. They are 278 Egyptians; 63 Syrians; four Lebanese; 33 Palestinians; 79 Jordanians; one Yemeni; 86 Sudanese; 8 Saudis; 4 Moroccans and 3 Tunisians, one from Somalia and one from Arabistan. The paper continued that those who were sentenced to death and also governed by the amnesty are from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Palestine, while women who are governed by the Amnesty are two from Egypt and other two women from Palestine. On October 20, the Iraqi President issued two decisions in which he pardoned all Iraqi prisoners and Arabs held in the Iraqi jails with the exception of those who are arrested under charges of spying for Israel and the USA. Meantime, an Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad said that four Iraqis were wounded in raids launched by American and British planes against civilians and service companies to the south of Iraq. The spokesman who was quoted by the Iraqi official news agency said that the "enemy planes bombarded our civil and service establishments in Waset province and the bombardment resulted in wounding four innocent citizens." The spokesman explained that several enemy formations coming from the Kuwaiti airspace, backed by AWACS plane from inside the Saudi Arabian airspace and one A-2 C plane from the Kuwaiti airspace carried out 26 armed sorties over several areas of southern Iraq. He added that the Iraqi anti warplanes missiles intercepted these planes and "forced them to flee back to their bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait." _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk