Posted on 09/19/2002 5:38:53 PM PDT by dighton
America accused Iraq yesterday of defying international demands for weapons inspectors to be given unfettered access, after Baghdad declared that their work must not violate its “rights, sovereignty, security and independence”.
Three days after announcing that inspectors could return to Iraq “without conditions”, Naji Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister, reading a speech on behalf of Saddam, suggested that this did not mean they would have unconditional freedom to seek out weapons of mass destruction.
“Iraq was, and is still, ready to co-operate with the Security Council and international organisations,” Mr Sabri told United Nations General Assembly.
“However, it rejects any transgression at the expense of its rights, sovereignty, security and independence that is in contradiction to the principles of the [UN] charter and international law.”
The White House said the comments proved that Iraq could not be trusted. Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said: “When Iraq talks about sovereignty and independence, those are code words for thwarting the inspectors.”
UN weapons inspectors, who left Iraq four years ago, were repeatedly denied access to suspected sites on the grounds that they were “sovereign” or “presidential”.
Iraqi officials who met senior inspectors on Tuesday failed to give guarantees about their freedom of action.
This renewed Iraqi gamesmanship will strengthen President George W Bush’s call for Congress to give him authorisation to use military force.
If adopted and passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, the congressional resolution would give Mr Bush a free hand to order an invasion of Iraq at any time even if the UN Security Council failed to act.
Republicans and Democrats have said they do not expect the resolution to be amended significantly and it is likely to be passed overwhelmingly in both houses.
Mr Bush’s proposed wording, subject to amendment in Congress, authorises “all means that [the president] determines to be appropriate, including force, to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and restore international peace and security in the region”.
At the same time, US and British diplomats were pressing for a new Security Council resolution setting out stringent conditions for Iraq, backed by the threat of force.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said only the threat of force would compel Iraq to comply with demands that inspectors should carry out their work “without conditions, without delay and without games”.
British officials said they were seeking an early test of Iraqi intentions by sending inspectors into a sensitive site, such as a one of Saddam’s presidential palaces.
After days of intense diplomacy, Russia, the key to securing a new resolution, moved closer to the American position.
Having long resisted any war against Iraq, Sergei Ivanov, the Russian defence minister, left the door open to the possibility of military action.
In Washington, where he was due to attend talks with Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and Colin Powell, the secretary of state, Mr Ivanov said: “Moscow’s position regarding a military operation against Iraq will depend on the information given to us by the American side about Baghdad’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.”
At the General Assembly last week, Mr Bush challenged the UN to compel Iraq to respect a long list of resolutions or become irrelevant.
He underlined the point yesterday when he said: “If the United Nations Security Council won’t deal with the problem, the United States and some of its friends will.”
In his response, Mr Sabri accused America of fabricating stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. “I hereby declare before you that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons,” he told the General Assembly. He invited any country to send experts “accompanied by politicians” to visit Iraq to verify its claims.
He said Iraq had accepted the return of UN inspectors but said the arrangements for their work should respect the country’s sovereignty. He criticised America for imposing more than a decade of economic sanctions and for seeking to overthrow Saddam.
Dr Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations agency charged with disarming Iraq, was due to brief the Security Council on his discussions with the Iraqis on Tuesday night when, according to diplomats, Iraqi officials failed to provide guarantees that inspectors would be able to work freely. Dr Blix is said to have presented the Iraqis with a detailed list of demands for logistical support once the inspectors started work.
But the Iraqi officials declined to offer any answers, saying that they had to check with Baghdad.
The topics were described as “nuts and bolts” questions central to the inspectors’ activities. They included issues such as security, communications and use of Iraqi aircraft and helicopters.
They also included the setting up of regional offices in Basra and Mosul, the installation of monitoring equipment, accommodation and even the round-the-clock presence - or lack of it - of an English-speaking minder.
I wouldn't be surprised that those two patriots, Carville and Begala, slipped the Iraqis the Florida 2000 Democrat playbook for changing the rules after the fact.
First we kill him, then we get in line to p!$$ on his grave!
Military action? Kind of like the Korean War was a "police action?" This kind of euphemism puts a kinder, gentler face on something that is barbaric. It is a craven intellectual shield those who deny the reality of war hide behind. War is a nasty, brutal business, and yet there are those who wish to try and soften the reality.
U.S. and U.K. soldiers are going in to kill Iraqi soldiers so our soldiers can come home safe. One can never forget that Iraqi soldiers have lives they would rather continue to lead, wives to go home to, and children to raise..they would rather not lose their lives on the battlefield, however, this is what will happen, when we invade Iraq. /rant
This is just some of the shouting. But soon that will be over, too. Very soon.
I take it you missed the President's speech to the UN then, huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.