![]() Tuesday, Oct 22, 2002 |
| International | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By Sridhar Krishnaswami
For the record, the Bush administration has been taking the line that it has the authority to act against Iraq, but ground realities over the last two weeks have forced a re-think in the Republican administration's stance. Veto-wielding members in the Security Council refused to subscribe to an earlier draft resolution that had an automatic trigger clause on the use of force in case Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, defied the United Nations weapons inspectors and their programme. Under the current scheme of things, the U.S. will present its resolution in the early part of the week; and the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, appeared confident that it will have support. A total of nine votes out of the 15-member Council is required to get a resolution through, and none of the Permanent Members can cast a veto. "I think it's a resolution that will draw good support from the Security Council'', Gen. Powell remarked on Sunday. He said Washington believed that the U.S. and other "like-minded'' nations "will have all the authority it needs'' if Mr. Hussein refuses to permit the inspections team. It is still unclear if the Bush administration will agree to the French proposal on a two-phase resolution, the second with respect to the use of force coming only after the inspectors have reported a failed mission. Gen. Powell has stressed that there would have to be a linkage to the "consequences''. But basically, the Secretary of State has argued that use of force could come about in one of two ways: the United Nations acting as a group; or the U.S. and "like-minded'' nations taking on Iraq. The final language of the U.S. draft resolution is being worked on and debated among diplomats. Some are concerned that the Bush administration insists on saying that Iraq is in "material breach'' of its obligations under U.N. resolutions. International law specialists and some diplomats are worried that the U.S. will use the term "material breach'' to come back later and say that the original authorisation of the U.N. use of force against Iraq in the aftermath of its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 is still valid. A country like France, for instance, is insistent that any authorisation on the use of force against Iraq will require a new U.N. resolution.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|