|
||||||||
  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Security Council receives U.S. proposal on IraqAdministration grows weary with delays, say officials
From Liz Neisloss
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Over objections from France and Russia, the United States distributed its draft resolution on Iraq to the full Security Council Wednesday afternoon as the White House indicated its patience was running short. The meeting was barely under way when Russia's ambassador to the U.N., Sergey Lavrov, told reporters the U.S. draft still did not meet Russia's criteria. "My minister said yesterday [Tuesday] in Moscow that the latest U.S. draft does not meet our two basic concerns: One is the automaticity in the use of force that is still there, and two is loading inspectors in spite of their wishes with unimplementable mandates, " Lavrov said. Despite Russian and French concerns, the United States went to the full council with its draft -- moving it along in the process toward eventual vote after several days of unsuccessful meetings among the Security Council's other permanent members -- Britain, Russia, France and China. The council also has 10 rotating members who saw the U.S. draft for the first time at Wednesday's meeting. The sticking point remains language that could be interpreted as a trigger for military action if Iraq does not comply with weapons inspections. Washington has indicated it may be willing to make further minor changes in language governing the operations of weapons inspections, but is not likely to modify the "trigger" language.
Asked about the fear that the Russians or French might eventually veto the U.S. draft, one Western diplomat said, "No one's been waving the 'V' word around, and usually, if that's what you're threatening, you make it clear." Ambassadors from the five permanent members met Tuesday and Wednesday in another attempt to bridge their differences but without reaching an agreement. Any of those nations could veto a Security Council resolution. The key items at issue, according to diplomats, remain the warning of "serious consequences" and references to a "material breach" of Baghdad's obligations to the United Nations -- the legal term that could be used as justification for an attack. In Washington, the White House signaled its impatience with the process. The United States was willing to work with the council's permanent members, "but we don't have endless time," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters Wednesday. "I think we've made some progress over the last couple of weeks, and we'll see where we come out," she said. End 'in sight'"I think that the end is coming into sight," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters. "It is not there yet. But it is coming into sight." Fleischer said the "end" would be "either an agreement or failure to reach agreement. And it could be either one right now." The Bush administration has said Iraq has chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions dating back to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and is working to develop nuclear weapons. President Bush has said that the United States will take military action to disarm Iraq if the United Nations fails to act. Iraq denies the charges. In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly September 12, Bush called on the United Nations to act in days and weeks, not months and years. Asked if the United States was calling for a deadline for the U.N. to finish work on the resolution, Fleischer said, "I haven't heard anybody put a hard timetable on it like that. I think you've seen an acceleration in the pace." Diplomats say the United States might make further minor revisions to the draft resolution on issues covering how the inspectors will operate, but Washington is unlikely to concede on the so-called "trigger" language. In its current form, the resolution says Iraq is "in material breach of its obligations" and states if Iraq makes "false statements" or "omissions" in its weapons declarations -- or if it fails "at any time to comply with and cooperate fully with this resolution" -- then it would be found in "further material breach" of its obligations. The only permanent member of the Security Council that has expressed full support for the U.S. position is Britain. -- CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace contributed to this report
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
