The ‘BIG’ question is “Will international law be respected by the Bush administration, especially when they realise that the vast majority of the world’s community reject the US stance on the Iraq issue.” Most political analysts believe only the ‘UN’ should decide if there should be another military intervention, not individual nations otherwise this could create ‘CHAOS’ in the world, with nations ignoring UN authority and implementing their own political agendas on others.
Three big powers tell US it’s wrong on Iraq
By Caroline Overington, Herald Correspondent in New York and agencies September 30 2002
The United States was last night considering the implications of leading an attack on Iraq without the support of Russia, France and China, after all three rejected a US draft plan for dealing with President Saddam Hussein. The US revealed at the weekend that it wanted to give the Iraqi leader 30 days to open his borders to weapons inspectors under new, strict conditions, or face a military strike.
The new conditions, which were quickly rejected by Baghdad, would include allowing weapons inspectors unobstructed access to factories, military bases and Saddam’s presidential palaces. The US wants the United Nations Security Council to adopt its plan as a binding resolution, but Russia, France and China, three of the council’s five permanent members, have already said they do not support it.
Russia’s Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, emerged from 90 minutes of talks with US diplomats to re-state Moscow’s opposition to a military strike, telling reporters the UN should accept Iraq’s offer to allow weapons inspectors to return before making threats. “UN weapons inspectors should return to Iraq as quickly as possible,” he said. “The necessary conditions for this exist.” France also appeared unmoved by US pressure, with a spokeswoman for President Jacques Chirac saying weapons inspectors should return to Iraq before threats were made because of “the seriousness of the decisions to be taken and the consequences”.
The Chinese Premier, Zhu Rongji, said China had “respect for Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”. “If the weapons inspections do not take place, if we do not have clear proof and if we do not have the authorisation of the Security Council, we cannot launch a military attack on Iraq,” he said.
Washington’s lone supporter among permanent members of the council is Britain. In London, the Defence Ministry said it was preparing to add 4000 troops to the 60,000-strong US force already in the Gulf region. President George Bush used his weekly radio address on Saturday to signal a willingness to proceed without the support of all members of the Security Council, saying: “The Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced.”
The US and Britain sent senior diplomats to Moscow, Paris and Beijing over the weekend in an effort to win support for their campaign, but met strong resistance from Russia and France, both of which have historic friendships with Iraq. A US undersecretary of state, Marc Grossman, who has visited Moscow and Paris with the political director of Britain’s Foreign Office, Peter Ricketts, said all nations appeared to agree that dealing with Iraq was “a challenge”.
US and British diplomats are using two main arguments: first, that Saddam has obstructed the work of weapons inspectors so many times that the threat of force is necessary to make him comply this time; and second, that Iraqis support the invasion. This latter point is the more contentious. The US is using diplomats who have travelled widely in Iraq to make the case that the people of that country, and in particular its women, want a change of regime as much as Washington does, and would welcome a US-led strike in the same way as citizens of Afghanistan did.