Disarmament Diplomacy

Issue No. 59, July - August 2001

News Review

Military Action Against Iraq Retakes Centre Stage

Following the collapse of US-UK led efforts to restructure the sanctions regime, military action by both countries in Iraq has intensified.

On June 26, the UN Security Council met in public session to consider proposals tabled by Britain to allow Iraq to import civilian goods I return for strengthening implementation of the embargo on military and potential dual-use equipment. As reported in the last issue, controversy over the practicalities and politics of the 'smart sanctions' proposal had mounted in the build-up to the June 26 meeting. During the session, Russia led the way in refusing to back the plan. The following day, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ordzhinikidze explained Moscow's stance to the Interfax news agency: "We cannot agree with such a draft resolution. In essence, it freezes the current state of affairs, maintaining sanctions with unacceptable consequences for Iraq's people and economy in the absence of any progress on disarmament." A few days before the Security Council meeting, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov had clearly signalled his government's dissatisfaction (June 22): "[T]he current draft...is, unfortunately, one-sided. As a matter of fact, it only focuses on the sanctions regime and on making it tougher. At the same time, it does not contain such important elements as monitoring of military programmes and the resultant clear prospect of the removal of the sanctions from Iraq."

Addressing the meeting, Ambassador Sergei Lavrov set out Russia's approach: "[W]e have today submitted a concrete proposal which contains clear-cut criteria for a suspension and the subsequent lifting of sanctions along with the deployment in Iraq of a system of long-term disarmament monitoring based on compliance with the relevant SC resolutions." Lavrov's counterproposals were immediately rejected by US Ambassador James Cunningham, who told reporters (June 26) that "the text that the Russian Ambassador put down this afternoon is not helpful. It doesn't move the process forward and it does not help us with the essential task that is front of the Council at the moment, which is dealing with the need to improve the humanitarian situation and the implementation of the oil-for-food programme..."

On July 3, accepting the inevitability of a Russian veto, Britain and the US agreed to postpone a vote on their plan. Instead, the Security Council unanimously approved (resolution 1360) a five-month extension of the oil-for-food programme, with the intention of reaching agreement on a new resolution during that period. Ambassador Cunningham expressed regret that significant progress had eluded the Council:

"We could have - and as Council, should have - done better, and we all know why that was not possible. Our proposal is simple: lift the controls on purely civilian trade while maintaining the focus on the military items and technologies which must be controlled so that Iraq cannot restore its weapons of mass destruction, nor threaten its neighbours. ... There is broad support within the Council for US and UK efforts to implement this proposal. And we will continue. ... It is now apparent that agreement in the Council to change radically our approach to Iraq is not only desirable, but achievable. It would have been adopted today, save for the threat of a veto. But a veto would bring our work to a halt, and would thus be a victory for Iraq. ... We will use the time before the next rollover to press ahead with our approach."

The intensity of British and US disappointment was increased by the fact that China and France had both been satisfied by progress in minimising the number of dual-use items to be barred from entering Iraq. According to reports, an original 23-page Goods Review List had been reduced to 10 pages by July 3. According to State Department Spokesperson Richard Boucher (July 2): "The core of the new resolution, the most important piece, needs to be the list of goods that are subject to review by the members of the Council or by the UN to ensure that they...aren't sold to Iraq. We have reached agreement with four out of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council, after a number of very detailed experts' meetings, on that list."

Following numerous attacks through June and July by US and UK aircraft against Iraqi installations aiming to disrupt the 'no-fly zones' in the north and south of the country, large-scale British-American offensive air operations, in and outside the zones, were launched on August 7 and August 10, the most significant air strikes for six months. On August 11, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement strongly condemned the activity:

"On August 10, the air forces of the USA and Great Britain dealt massive missile-bomb strikes at the territory of southern Iraq, killing one person and injuring eleven. This was the largest military action...[since] the February bombings of Baghdad's suburbs. On August 7 and 8, American and British warplanes had fired on targets in the so-called northern no-fly zone near the city of Mosul. The statement by a Pentagon spokesman that the August 10 strikes were dealt at a communication centre, an air defence battery, and a radar station in no way justifies the American-British actions against a sovereign state. Taken in circumvention of the United Nations Security Council, such actions are a gross violation of the rules of international law and only complicate the search for a solution to the Iraqi problem. It is necessary to put an end to the use of force against Iraq as soon as possible, and to create favourable conditions for a resumption of the dialogue between Baghdad and the UN..."

On August 7, President Bush defended the strikes: "Saddam Hussein is a menace and we need to keep him in check and we will. He's been a menace forever and he needs to keep his country open for inspection so we can see whether he is making weapons of mass destruction." On July 29, the likelihood of major attacks had been clearly signalled by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice: "Saddam Hussein is on the radar screen for the administration. The administration is working hard with a number of our friends and allies to have a policy that...looks at use of military force in a more resolute manner, and not just a manner of tit-for-tat with him every day."

On August 3, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld argued that the advantages of the no-fly zones were well worth fighting to maintain: "Our interest is in understanding what's taking place in that country... If, in the last analysis, you're reasonably confident that you have a reasonable understanding of what's taking place on the ground, which gives you a reasonable warning time, then...it ends up with a not unsatisfactory outcome from the standpoint of the northern and southern no-fly zones."

On July 31, Pentagon spokesperson Rear Admiral Craig Quigley told reporters that Iraq had so far initiated 62 "provocations' in the no-fly zones this year, compared with 145 throughout 2000.

Reports: Transcript of replies by Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Russian Foreign Ministry Transcript, Document 1194-22-06-2001, June 22; Russia has new Iraq proposals, Britain rejects them, Reuters, June 26; In Security Council debate, governments stress need to alleviate humanitarian situation in Iraq while ensuring full compliance with Council resolutions, UN Press Release SC/7085, June 26; Statement by Sergei Lavrov, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation at the United Nations, at Open Formal Meeting of the Security Council, June 26, Russian Foreign Ministry Transcript, Document 1222-27-06-2001, June 27; Russia says its proposals can solve Iraq arms dispute, Reuters, June 27; Transcript - US official calls Russian proposal on Iraq 'unhelpful', Washington File, June 27; Excerpt - US backs extension of current UN controls on Iraq, Washington File, July 2; Security Council extends provisions of resolution 986 authorizing import of Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, UN Press Release SC/7093, July 3; Text - US endorses 5-month extension of UN controls on Iraq, Washington File, July 5; Rice - US will be resolute with Iraq, Associated Press, July 29; Excerpt - Iraq more aggressive against Allied aircraft, Washington File, July 31; Defense Department report, August 3 - Iraq, Washington File, August 3; US planes bomb targets in Iraq, Associated Press, August 7; Defense Department report, August 7 - air strikes over Iraq, Washington File, August 7; US, British planes bomb Iraq sites, Associated Press, August 10; Russian Foreign Ministry Statement, Document 1465-11-08-2001, August 11; US, British warplanes hit three targets in southern Iraq, Washington File, August 13; Defense Department Report, August 14 - Iraq air strike, Washington File, August 14.