Russia rejects use of force in Iraq deal
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.BRITAIN found itself deep in diplomatic mud at the United Nations last night as Russia and other countries raised objections to a Security Council resolution aimed at strengthening the weapons inspections deal brokered a week ago by Secretary General Kofi Annan with Iraq.
Continued deadlock in the Council could have serious consequences for Britain and the United States in any future confrontations with Iraq. Work was continuing on a draft text last night, and some diplomats held out the hope that a resolution could be adopted today.
As drafted by Britain, with clear encouragement from the US, initial versions of the resolution were designed to impart new solidity to Mr Annan's agreement. This promises UN inspectors access to eight presidential sites in Iraq so long as they are chaperoned by diplomats. More importantly, London and Washington are seeking a resolution that would be a stage-setter for instant military retaliation should Saddam Hussein violate the Annan agreement. In that regard, however, their shared enthusiasm for a resolution may now be about to backfire.
When Mr Annan departed for Iraq, Washington calculated that whether or not it succeeded, his mission would make any future military strikes against Baghdad easier to justify. Judging by events in the Security Council, the opposite may turn out to be true.
With Russia in the lead, several Council members were still attempting last night to insert wording that would make it clear no action could be taken to punish Iraq for violating the Annan agreement without additional consultations occurring first in the Council. It was not certain yesterday whether Washington could accept that military action be preceded by Council deliberations.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments