Analysis: Why US Rushes to Declare Iraq in Breach of UN Resolution

Home>>World

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Monday, December 23, 2002

Analysis: Why US Rushes to Declare Iraq in Breach of UN Resolution

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

The United States on Thursday declared that Iraq is in "another material breach" of United Nations resolutions by submitting a report which "totally fails" to meet the requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on its disarmament.

The US assessment of the 12,000-page Iraqi dossier submitted on Dec. 7 was in sharp contrast to a preliminary report given by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed El Baradei on the same day to the Security Council.

In a first formal response to the Iraqi report about its weapons of mass destruction programs, Powell told reporters that the report is only "a catalogue of recycled information and flagrant omissions" which constitutes "another material breach" of UN resolutions.

Blix, chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, admitted that there is "little new information" in the Iraqi report, but he noted that the UN inspectors can neither support nor deny Baghdad's claim that it has no weapons of mass destruction, and will further examine the report.

While Powell accused Iraq of continuing to play games, Blix praised the Iraqi government for its cooperation with the United Nations since the inspection resumed in Iraq on Nov. 27.

The gap between the two evaluations of the Iraq report is obvious: while the United States declared Iraq in "material breach" of UN resolutions, the UN inspectors have yet to come to the same conclusion.

The key word here is "material breach" which is regarded to be the most serious form of violation of UN resolutions. The Resolution 1441 adopted on Nov. 8 says that "false statements or omissions in the declarations ... 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."

If Iraq were in "material breach" of the resolution, it will have to face "serious consequences," a diplomatic term which Washington interprets as the automatic authorization of use of force.

Britain, a close ally of the United States, has accepted that interpretation, which was fundamental in their bid to overcome France's opposition to the US-drafted the resolution.

In the view of France, the clause means that missing data and less than candid statements in an Iraq declaration about its weapons are not enough to cause a "material breach" if there is no other pattern of defiance by Baghdad.

Announcing Iraq in "another material breach" of UN resolutions on Thursday, Powell, widely believed to be the sole dovish figure in the Bush administration, issued a stern warning to Baghdad.

"On the basis of this declaration, on the basis of the evidence before us, our path for the coming weeks is clear," Powell said. "Iraq's noncompliance and defiance of the international community" has brought it closer to the day when it will have to face serious consequences, he added.

"The world is still waiting for Iraq to comply with its obligations. The world will not wait forever," he said.

But notably, Powell stressed that the US rejection of Iraq's declaration about its weapons of mass destruction program is not "an immediate trigger" for war.

This may sound paradoxical. But analysts believe that denouncing Iraq in violation of UN resolutions while stopping short of immediate military action is a carefully calculated US response to the Iraqi declaration.

According to US officials, denouncing the Iraqi weapons statement as the most serious of form of breach at this stage will help build up a case against Baghdad in the coming weeks because the Bush administration has set the last week of January as a make-or-break point in its long standoff with Iraq.

Although the Bush administration has so far refrained from interpreting the "breach" as a sufficient pretext for military actions, the characterization could be a useful one in case of a showdown with Baghdad.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration would use the characterization - "material breach" - to step up pressure on the United Nations to demand interviews with Iraqi scientists or technicians outside Iraq, one US official was quoted as saying by US media.

UN chief inspector Blix has reservations over such interviews, saying he would not be involved in "abductions." The United States,however, is convinced that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein may block the process and create a "direct material breach" of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

Even if Saddam does not resist such interviews, the United States could well use them to dig up evidence against Baghdad or collect information for military strikes in case of a war, analysts say.

As to why the administration has refrained from treating the Iraqi "breach" as an immediate cause for war, White House officials indicated that their decision not to push the pace of the confrontation with Baghdad was tactical, driven by timing rather than any belief that the omissions in the Iraq declaration did not amount to a legal justification for war, according to a report by The New York Times.

In discussion with other Security Council members, US diplomats determined that there was little support for treating the flaws in the declaration as sufficient grounds to trigger a war at this moment.

Senior administration officials reportedly have concluded that the best way to hold the coalition of countries opposed to Iraq together is to permit the UN inspections to continue.

But they are also increasingly confident, especially when the process to request interviews of Iraqi scientists begins, that the United States could marshal the evidence it needs in the coming weeks to convince the UN Security Council that Iraq is in violation of UN Resolution 1441 and to call for the use of force.

Nevertheless, despite such US confidence, it remains a daunting task for the United States to find out "substantiated evidence" to justify its judgment that Iraq is in "material breach" of Resolution 1441, analysts say.

Source: Xinhua

Questions?Comments? Click here

Bush Decides No Immediate War with Iraq

US Sees "Material Breach" in Iraqi Arms Declaration

Zhu, Schroeder to be on Maiden Trip of China's First Maglev Train ( 2 Messages)

Chinese-made Electric Locomotive Hits Record Speed ( 2 Messages)

Analysis: The Rise of China -- a Threat or an Opportunity? ( 7 Messages)

US-Japan Missile Defense Cooperation Worries China ( 28 Messages)

Japan Wants Rearmament ( 6 Messages)