 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 Nov. - 1 Dec. 1999 Issue No. 457 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 Nov. - 1 Dec. 1999 Issue No. 457
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Agreement in sight on Iraqi oil
By Salah HemeidAs they scramble to break the year-old stalemate on the Iraqi situation, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are currently meeting every day to draft a new resolution to restart the UN weapons inspections that ground to a halt earlier this year when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein barred inspection teams from working in Iraq.
The focus of the talks is a US-backed Anglo-Dutch proposal that offers Baghdad the possibility of the suspension of UN economic sanctions, which have been in place for almost a decade, in return for its resuming cooperation with UN inspectors. While the United States has expressed optimism that an agreement may be near, diplomats from Russia and China, Iraq's closest allies on the Council, have said in recent days that serious differences remain.
The Anglo-Dutch draft resolution, which is believed to have majority support on the 15-member council, requires Iraq to accept, among other disarmament conditions, a new arms inspection agency to replace the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), the troubled body whose expulsion by Baghdad was cited as the reason for a decision to bomb Iraq last December.
However, the present daily meetings of the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council have again highlighted divisions on the thorny issue of the stringent economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Observers said key remaining issues included both the length of time required between the council's adoption of a resolution and when sanctions would actually be suspended, and the actual criteria for their suspension.
While Russia and China want the so-called "trigger" for suspending the sanctions to be readily achievable, Britain and the United States have held out for Baghdad's full compliance with UN resolutions calling for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.
The United States said that before any temporary suspension of sanctions could take place, Iraq would have to allow inspectors back into the country, fulfill the required disarmament requirements, and co-operate with inspectors for a substantial period of time.
Meanwhile in a departure from previous policy on Iraq, the Security Council last Friday approved a two-week stopgap extension of its humanitarian programme for the country, the 15 Security Council members voting unanimously to extend the oil-for-food programme for two weeks to December 4, instead of for the customary six months.
The council however did not alter the current US $5.256 billion ceiling on Iraq's six-monthly oil exports, but said that Iraq could make good a shortfall in revenue from the two previous 180-day periods.
UN diplomats have said that the short-term renewal suggests that the five permanent council members have given themselves two weeks to wrap up negotiations on the new comprehensive resolution on Iraqi sanctions. The humanitarian programme was put in place in December 1996 in an attempt to soften the harsh impact of the embargo by allowing Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil in order to pay for the import of food and medical supplies.
Iraq however immediately rejected the resolution, saying that it would "not deal" with a United Nations decision to extend the oil-for-food humanitarian programme by only two weeks.
"This resolution has absolutely no meaning from a practical point of view. It can do nothing in two weeks, and that is why Iraq will not deal with it," Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Said Al-Sahhaf told the official Iraqi News Agency.
"This resolution created by the United States is aimed at blackmailing the other members of the UN Security Council into accepting the ill-reputed British proposal," he added.
But Al-Sahhaf did not say whether Iraq would suspend its oil exports at the end of the current six-month phase of the programme in the absence of any renewal. Iraq has regularly expressed its dissatisfaction with the oil-for-food programme, saying it perpetuates the economic sanctions and does little to ease the hardships of ordinary Iraqis.
While diplomats were reporting slow progress at the UN, news reports in the American press have suggested that both Washington and Moscow have cut a deal under which Russia will support the new resolution on Iraq in return for American tolerance of its operations in Chechnya.
Russian officials have not denied reports in the New York Times which said that the deal had been outlined in a letter sent by the Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov to US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, although they have scoffed at tales of "American leaks".
Whatever the case may be, when and if Russian troops take over the Chechen capital Grozny, it will become clearer whether there has in fact been a deal between Russia and the US.
In addition, Russia, like France and China, is eager to begin work on a major oil-production agreement it has signed with Iraq, which involves some of the potentially most lucrative oil fields in the world. Many observers believe that Moscow may demand that such agreements be allowed to move forward if Washington insists on passing the Anglo-Dutch resolution.
Despite Iraq's public rejection of the resolution, analysts suggest that Saddam's government might yet be willing to accept a new UN arms inspection agency for three reasons. First, it is widely believed that the US would use a refusal as a pretext for another attack on the country. Second, the resolution could be seen as representing another step in the long-term erosion of the sanctions. And third -- perhaps the most important reason -- Iraq is very eager to see renewed foreign investment in its shattered oil industry.
