Why bother debating this?

[Ronn_Bman]

Here is the report from the February 14 SC meeting. There was some controversy about edited versions of the transcript being offered online, but if I understand it correctly, this is the complete version.

I think the finale, as addressed by the Spainish Foreign Minister, was particularly telling.

Part of Hans Blix's address to the UN SC: the task of disarmament foreseen in Resolution 687 and the progress on key remaining disarmament tasks foreseen in Resolution 1284, as well as the disarmament obligations which Iraq was given a final opportunity to comply with under Resolution 1441, were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter timespan. Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination under UNSCOM and the IAEA supervision of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete when inspectors were withdrawn almost eight years later, at the end of 1998. If Iraq has provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament under Resolution 687 could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of Resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short if, I quote, “immediate, active and unconditional cooperation,” unquote, with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

[ 02-25-2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

The transcript from Hans Blix's January 27 address.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Here is the report from the February 14 SC meeting. There was some controversy about edited versions of the transcript being offered online, but if I understand it correctly, this is the complete version. I think the finale, as addressed by the Spainish Foreign Minister, was particularly telling. Quote: Part of Hans Blix's address to the UN SC: the task of disarmament foreseen in Resolution 687 and the progress on key remaining disarmament tasks foreseen in Resolution 1284, as well as the disarmament obligations which Iraq was given a final opportunity to comply with under Resolution 1441, were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter timespan. Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination under UNSCOM and the IAEA supervision of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete when inspectors were withdrawn almost eight years later, at the end of 1998. If Iraq has provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament under Resolution 687 could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of Resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short if, I quote, “immediate, active and unconditional cooperation,” unquote, with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

[/QUOTE]Yes, I remembered something of the sort, but I didn't want to venture any opinion without proper sources.

Reading this - I can't say anything else than : both sides are right. The problem is - has no deadline been set ? As a project leader, I know very well that an objective must be associated with a deadline date if it is to be reached ... 'Immediately' makes no precise sense !

No wonder there has been so much disagreement as you can read this report both ways. The foremost question is : why our diplomats and leaders, being no stupid, did they carefully not set a date after which Iraq would be considered as having patently violated the initial resolution ?

IMO, a new resolution is not needed - what is needed is a proper planning and calendar.

[Night Stalker]

IIRC both Britain and the US wanted a timeline included in UN687, but France and others balked stating that Iraq and Hussein were not children that needed babysitting. I don't have a source at the moment, I'll try and dig one up later. But, it's not poor planning that cripples the UN. It's the incessant sqwabbling between the SC members that neuters it. It seems that whatever position some members of the SC take, other members automatiaclly take up an opposing position. Now, France is proposing inspections with a timeline, just to avoid a war.

The whole interaction of the SC just reeks of dirty politics to me, and that goes for all members.

NOTE: I'm not trying to single France out, they just stick out in my mind at the moment.

[ 02-25-2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Here is a new article about Blix:

Blix Says Iraq Signals New Cooperation

Tuesday February 25, 2003 4:00 PM

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iraq has shown new signs of substantive cooperation in recent days, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Tuesday.

Iraq has sent U.N. inspectors half a dozen letters in the past few days and ``there are some elements which are positive which need to be explored further,'' Blix told reporters before meeting his advisory College of Commissioners to discuss his upcoming report to the Security Council due by Saturday.

Blix has complained that Iraq was not providing substantive information about its weapons program. The issue is at the heart of the U.S. case that Saddam Hussein has failed to fully cooperate with inspectors and therefore the Security Council should authorize military action against Iraq.

Asked if there was any indication by the Iraqis of substantive cooperation, Blix replied ``yes.''

Blix said one letter from Iraq informed inspectors that ``they have found an R-400 bomb containing liquid in a site which is known to us at which they did dispose of biological weapons before.''

He gave no details, but R-400 aerial bombs can be filled with biological agents. Among the outstanding issues which Iraq has not answered is providing documentation about the filling of R-400 bombs with aflotoxin.

``There is another letter that tells us they have found some handwritten documents concerning the act of disposal of prohibited items in 1991,'' Blix said. ``Now all these have to be followed up, but these are new elements.''

Blix said he has received no reply from the Iraqi government to his order to start destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles, their engines and components by Saturday for exceeding the 93-mile limit in U.N. resolutions.

Iraq says the missiles don't exceed the limit and has asked for technical talks.

But when Blix was asked whether the issue was open for debate, he said, ``not between us and Iraq.''

[Timber Loftis]

Right. Just like I've said, Saddam knows that when the end game comes he can push the "STOP" button at any time. That's why he's stalled so much - he knows he can reverse everything 180 when needed. Of course, he may have erred: the US has spent millions building up forces and just may invade no matter what.

In 1990, he made the horrible mistake of thinking the world would let his occupation of Kuwait continue. He misread the diplomatic situation. It seems to me he's gotten much cagier since then, or at least he's gotten smarter advisors. Let's see how he plays this one out.

I'll give the guy credit for being pretty good at the diplomacy game. Heck, he's got NATO nations sputtering insults at each other, EU members arguing amongst themselves, a war protest marches occuring in the very patriotic post-9/11 USA. He's doing something right.

[Ronn_Bman]

Djinn, while the letters and missile found seem to be substantive are they really?

About Mr. Blix's quote from the article. I guess it all depends on how we ask the question. "Asked if there was any indication by the Iraqis of substantive cooperation", Blix replied ``yes.''

The missile the Iraqi's disclosed was found at a site the UN knew existed and was used for destroying weapons of this type. They find an old destroyed missile that has some liquid left in it, report it, and this a substantive gesture? Despite the fact that they are refusing to destroy the NEW El-Samood missiles that they purchased, assembled, and fielded in DIRECT VIOLATION of UN mandates? One missile from a known junk pile is enough to make people say, "see they are working with us." They "working us" all right!

This is what I'm talking about when I refer to Iraqi information "crumbs". Is this really what we want to accept?

Now for those who hope the Iraqis will announce their agreement to destroy the missiles, I have good news! Of course they will, but sadly, there will be a dispute over the number of missiles and their location. Of course getting these crumbs will buy Saddam more time from some.

[Djinn Raffo]

I thought the samood missiles were of a grey area when it came to range. 150 kilometers (about 90 miles?) is the max allowed. And al-samood have a range of 30 miles.

Is that correct?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Reading this - I can't say anything else than : both sides are right. The problem is - has no deadline been set ? As a project leader, I know very well that an objective must be associated with a deadline date if it is to be reached ... 'Immediately' makes no precise sense ! No wonder there has been so much disagreement as you can read this report both ways. The foremost question is : why our diplomats and leaders, being no stupid, did they carefully not set a date after which Iraq would be considered as having patently violated the initial resolution ? IMO, a new resolution is not needed - what is needed is a proper planning and calendar.

Well your assessment is kinder than mine...lol.

I think Mr. Blix made it clear that opening doors is procedural cooperation and not substantive. None of the Iraqi disclosures has been substantive, and when the Iraqi's do cooperate, they are not cooperating fully. Without full cooperation the disarmament cannot take place.

We can agree completely though about the lack of a deadline being ridiculous, unfortunately leaving out a specific deadline was the only way to make everyone "comfortable" with the agreement. You know what's worse? If there was a deadline, there still wouldn't be agreement about if it had been violated or what to do about it. The UN is a confusing place where negotiations between nations proceed at a snails pace.

[ 02-25-2003, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: I thought the samood missiles were of a grey area when it came to range. 150 kilometers (about 90 miles?) is the max allowed. And al-samood have a range of 30 miles. Is that correct?

No these missles EXCEED the limits by 30 miles.