|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 09 March 2003 |
 |
|
 |
World |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Iraqi failure to cooperate by March 17 will mean war Britain LONDON, Marcw, Saturday (AFP) If Iraq does not comply with UN resolutions before a March 17 ultimatum proposed by the US, Britain and Spain, the result would be war, Britain's ambassador to the world body said Friday. It was not clear whether ambassador Jeremy Greenstock was referring to a scenario of an amended resolution on Iraq being adopted by the UN, or referring to the possibility of war breaking out on March 17 even if such a resolution was not passed. An amended draft resolution unveiled Friday seeks to have the UN declare that Iraq will be deemed to have failed to disarm "unless, on or before March 17, the Security Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation" with UN weapons inspectors. Asked what would happen if Iraq failed to comply by March 17, Greenstock told Channel Four television from UN headquarters in New York: "They (Iraq) will have lost their final opportunity, and the serious consequences expressed by Resolution 1441 then come into play, there is no doubt about that." Asked whether that meant war, Greenstock said: "Yes, it has to be military action." Anti-war countries on the Security Council have said they will prevent the passage of any resolution authorizing military intervention in Iraq. Asked whether there was any room for compromise on the March 17 date, Greenstock replied: "If there was, it could only be a day or two, we are not going to be talking about further weeks now." He was sceptical about a French call to bring heads of state and government to the UN for the vote on an amended resolution, a proposal that was quickly rejected by Washington. Greenstock said: "Staging an event is not what the UN is looking for. "We are trying to create a strategic turnaround by (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein, and he will rely on such a meeting to manipulate for further delay, and I don't think that we will have any faith that such a meeting will produce a change of heart in Baghdad." US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave firm backing to the new proposed resolution containing a March 17 deadline, and said the United States wanted the Security Council to vote on it next week. Asked whether its sponsors could get the amendment through the UN Security Council, Greenstock said: "I think we have a very good chance." Christopher Meyer, who recently returned to London after completing a lengthy stint as British ambassador to Washington, told Channel Four that the focus in the coming days would be on the so-called middle countries, the undecided non-veto holding Security Council members - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan. To be adopted, the resolution proposed by United States, Britain and Spain needs the backing of nine of the Security Council's 15 members. In addition, it must avoid the veto of the five permament council members - France, Russia, China, the US, and Britain. Meyer added: "The game, if I can call it that ... is to get the nine votes, which then confronts the other permanent members with the key issue, are they going to take their responsibilities or not." |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
