TPSIPOL FORUM: RED 15/03/2003 DEMOCRATIC
PERU'S POSITION ON IRAQ
Editorial
settle the matter, with regard to the position Peruvian front of the Security Council UN
Peruvians sometimes really do a melee of topics that may misinformation or lack of knowledge is released into the political arena. Issues such as the Peruvian government's position against the Security Council United Nations before the imminent war against Iraq.
During the previous weekend was put into question the position of ambassador Oswaldo De Rivero representative on the Security Council. Clear position and reaffirmed on Sunday, 9 this month in American TV's Panorama program by Foreign Minister Allan Wagner when he said "I hope this time is clear, if not properly clarified in the official statement that we issued last come . Peru's position is that peace must be ensured in a peaceful solution in Iraq must be achieved through international law. "
So De Rivero's position at all times has been clear as is clear from the article that published earlier days ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion/messages/15191) ) and reaffirmed in the following that title published in Peru's position on Iraq which shows us what is the position of the Security Council of the Peruvian representatives deal with this conflict as a sentence finally "diplomacy in the Security Council are not speeches only on principles, but the combination of principles "real politik". This sometimes confuses some with no experience and consider the mixed message. Peru's message is clear: Saddam Hussein is disarmed peacefully in a reasonable deadline set by the Security Council or United Nations disarmed by force.
Dr. Humberto Ramos, Editor
---------------------------------------- --------------------------------
PERU'S POSITION ON IRAQ
For Ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero
Permanent Representative of Peru to the United Nations
To have a correct view on the position of the Foreign Ministry and I took in the Security Council Representative of Peru to the United Nations on 18 February, is necessary to achieve a diplomatic point development agenda of the Security Council is called "The Situation between Iraq and Kuwait."
does this mean?, It means that the obligation to disarm Iraq is the result of the invasion of Kuwait and not a treaty peace, but only a cease-fire signed in 1991 under strict conditions. One of the main conditions is that Iraq is disarmed and not develop weapons of mass destruction. It has been 12 years and 10 resolutions of the Council for the disarmament, the last of 1441, adopted unanimously, forcing Saddam Hussein, one of the cruelest dictators of the world and double disarmament "active, immediate and unconditional" has not effectively performed so far, despite some concessions. I hope you do soon.
What is under discussion in the Security Council is not whether the United States are subject to Chapter VII or act unilaterally. At issue is disarmament "active, immediate and unconditional release" of Iraq by the United Nations.
"Active", because it is not that Saddam Hussein facilities, but hand over their weapons and not the inspectors go look under your bed. "Immediate", ie without delay. To find the Al Samoud II missiles, inspectors had to register Iraq, which is the size of California, for about two months and so far no known quantities of anthrax and VX nerve gas in existence. "Unconditional", because it can not restrict access or destruction of its weapons it will be giving awards to go gradual lifting of economic sanctions.
All members of the Security Council agree on a disarmament active, immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraq. Peru, Latin American, Arab and African countries that participated in the Council on February 18 also emphasized the active disarmament, immediate and unconditional release of Saddam Hussein, according to Resolution 1441. Also, like Peru, argued that disarmament should be done through the Security Council, that is, through the UN multilateral system, and that the use of force by the United Nations should be the last option. No one, including Peru, supported tacitly or ambiguous unilateral action.
The Peru said: "Peru considers that the crisis must be resolved within the legal framework of the United Nations and particularly in the context of decisions taken by the Security Council. Considers it a priority to exhaust the possibilities for a peaceful solution, which depends on immediate disarmament, unilateral and total by Iraq within the provisions and terms established by resolution 1441. "
After 18 February, Iraq has begun to cooperate more with inspectors and has given hope that the inspections can continue. This has divided the Security Council from those who do not believe in a sincere action and that Saddam Hussein believe that we need to give inspectors time, but with a deadline that can not be years or many months. Peru, in its position of February 18 had said that should be given a deadline, that is a deadline for the inspectors finish their work, not a declaration of war.
Today, this idea of \u200b\u200ba final term is fully shared by many members of the Security Council. The problem is the date. The Inspector Blix believed to be two months. The Americans and British say that until 17 March and the French, Russians and Chinese, maybe something similar to Blix.
For those who have had experience in the crisis in the Security Council, as the war India and Pakistan, the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt, the war in Cyprus and other wars, we understand that many of the solutions given in the Security Council are the result of diplomatic pressure and military tucked into principles of law international. The Security Council is "real politik."
A seasoned diplomat will no doubt that the recent concessions that Saddam Hussein has not been possible without the great military pressure and the strengthening of inspections. This is acknowledged even by the Foreign Minister de Villepin of France and all members of the Security Council.
In any case, there is nothing in the Peruvian position implicit supporting a unilateral use of force. Diplomacy in the Security Council are not just speeches on principles, but the combination of principles "realpolitik." This sometimes confuses some with no experience and consider the mixed message. Peru's message is clear: Saddam Hussein is disarmed peacefully in a reasonable deadline set by the Security Council or United Nations disarmed by force.
For Ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero
Permanent Representative of Peru to the United Nations
To have a correct view on the position of the Foreign Ministry and I took in the Security Council Representative of Peru to the United Nations on 18 February, is necessary to achieve a diplomatic point development agenda of the Security Council is called "The Situation between Iraq and Kuwait."
does this mean?, It means that the obligation to disarm Iraq is the result of the invasion of Kuwait and not a treaty peace, but only a cease-fire signed in 1991 under strict conditions. One of the main conditions is that Iraq is disarmed and not develop weapons of mass destruction. It has been 12 years and 10 resolutions of the Council for the disarmament, the last of 1441, adopted unanimously, forcing Saddam Hussein, one of the cruelest dictators of the world and double disarmament "active, immediate and unconditional" has not effectively performed so far, despite some concessions. I hope you do soon.
What is under discussion in the Security Council is not whether the United States are subject to Chapter VII or act unilaterally. At issue is disarmament "active, immediate and unconditional release" of Iraq by the United Nations.
"Active", because it is not that Saddam Hussein facilities, but hand over their weapons and not the inspectors go look under your bed. "Immediate", ie without delay. To find the Al Samoud II missiles, inspectors had to register Iraq, which is the size of California, for about two months and so far no known quantities of anthrax and VX nerve gas in existence. "Unconditional", because it can not restrict access or destruction of its weapons it will be giving awards to go gradual lifting of economic sanctions.
All members of the Security Council agree on a disarmament active, immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraq. Peru, Latin American, Arab and African countries that participated in the Council on February 18 also emphasized the active disarmament, immediate and unconditional release of Saddam Hussein, according to Resolution 1441. Also, like Peru, argued that disarmament should be done through the Security Council, that is, through the UN multilateral system, and that the use of force by the United Nations should be the last option. No one, including Peru, supported tacitly or ambiguous unilateral action.
The Peru said: "Peru considers that the crisis must be resolved within the legal framework of the United Nations and particularly in the context of decisions taken by the Security Council. Considers it a priority to exhaust the possibilities for a peaceful solution, which depends on immediate disarmament, unilateral and total by Iraq within the provisions and terms established by resolution 1441. "
After 18 February, Iraq has begun to cooperate more with inspectors and has given hope that the inspections can continue. This has divided the Security Council from those who do not believe in a sincere action and that Saddam Hussein believe that we need to give inspectors time, but with a deadline that can not be years or many months. Peru, in its position of February 18 had said that should be given a deadline, that is a deadline for the inspectors finish their work, not a declaration of war.
Today, this idea of \u200b\u200ba final term is fully shared by many members of the Security Council. The problem is the date. The Inspector Blix believed to be two months. The Americans and British say that until 17 March and the French, Russians and Chinese, maybe something similar to Blix.
For those who have had experience in the crisis in the Security Council, as the war India and Pakistan, the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt, the war in Cyprus and other wars, we understand that many of the solutions given in the Security Council are the result of diplomatic pressure and military tucked into principles of law international. The Security Council is "real politik."
A seasoned diplomat will no doubt that the recent concessions that Saddam Hussein has not been possible without the great military pressure and the strengthening of inspections. This is acknowledged even by the Foreign Minister de Villepin of France and all members of the Security Council.
In any case, there is nothing in the Peruvian position implicit supporting a unilateral use of force. Diplomacy in the Security Council are not just speeches on principles, but the combination of principles "realpolitik." This sometimes confuses some with no experience and consider the mixed message. Peru's message is clear: Saddam Hussein is disarmed peacefully in a reasonable deadline set by the Security Council or United Nations disarmed by force.
New York, March 2003
0 comments:
Post a Comment