NZ ambassador tells UN unilateral attack on Iraq not justified

11.40am

New Zealand's belief that a unilateral attack on Iraq is not justified has been reiterated to the United Nations General Assembly in New York this morning (NZ time).

New Zealand's ambassador to the United Nations, Don McKay, told the assembly during an open debate that while the Government recognised the UN Security Council must be able to authorise force, it did not believe such action was yet justified.

"The New Zealand Government has a very strong preference for a diplomatic solution to this crisis," Mr McKay said.

"We place considerable weight on the inspection and disarmament process. We believe it should run its course.

"We do not support military action against Iraq without a mandate from the Security Council, and we do not believe the council would be justified in giving that mandate at this time."

A report by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix last Friday suggested Iraq had moved to at least partly accommodate some of the inspectors' requests, Mr McKay said.

However, it still had to answer serious questions about material related to weapons of mass destruction.

"The New Zealand Government calls on Iraq to move rapidly to provide the information and co-operation requested of it to avert the catastrophe which war would bring to its people."

New Zealand's position was based on strong support for multilateralism, the international rule of law and its respect for the Security Council, Mr McKay said.

"We will uphold the council's decisions but urge it at this time to ensure that all available diplomatic means are used to pursue the disarmament of Iraq as set out in the council's resolutions."

South Africa also yesterday urged the world to continue inspections in Iraq before considering military action, thereby setting the tone for a mammoth UN debate about US war plans.

"We believe that resorting to war without fully exhausting all other options presents an admission of failure by the Security Council in carrying out its mandate of international peace and security," said Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo.

Supporting a position by France, Kumalo said inspections should be enhanced and become more intrusive before the United Nations ends them and considers other measures.

He was backed by Iran, which Iraq invaded in 1980, Cuba, Algeria and others at a public meeting, organised by the 115-member Non-Aligned Movement that South Africa heads. Some 70 nations, without seats on the UN Security Council, are scheduled to address the council's 15 members.

Kuwaiti envoy, Mansour al-Otaibi, whose country was invaded by Iraq in 1990, hoped that force would be the last resort, but he faulted Baghdad for its actions.

"It is regrettable that Iraq continues to challenge the will of the international community for so long without fully realising the repercussion and the gravity of such policies on the stability of the whole sub-region," al-Otaibi said.

In response, Iraq's UN ambassador Mohammed Aldouri, accused the United States and Britain of using the pretext of weapons of mass destruction to launch a war against the government of Saddam Hussein.

He appealed to members to listen to the "call of millions" who condemned war in demonstrations over the weekend but said Iraq was prepared to fight if attacked.

"If the aggression against Iraq takes place, Iraq's sons, famous for their struggle against British occupation in the 1920s, will defend their country," Aldouri said.

While the debate was being conducted, the United States and Britain worked on a new UN resolution seeking backing for an attack against Iraq, despite a reluctant Security Council.

No draft is expected to emerge before Wednesday, with US and British officials waiting for the end of the public meeting, which will spill over into Wednesday.

John Negroponte, the US ambassador to the United Nations, met his British counterpart, Sir Jeremy Greenstock on Monday to discuss "next steps and tactics, including the resolution," said one diplomat close to the talks.

Prospects for achieving a quick and clean resolution authorising war dimmed after the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, on Friday gave a more positive report than last month on the progress of his work in Iraq.

So far most council members support France, which means the United States and Britain face an uphill struggle getting even the minimum nine votes needed for adoption.

Earlier this month, the United States spoke of a resolution explicitly authorising force. Last week this was toned down to declaring Iraq in "material breach" of a November 8 council resolution 1441, words that would give the legal basis for war, and threaten "serious consequences."

Diplomats said they expected any new resolution to follow the language of resolution 1441, but were uncertain if it would include a set of conditions to Iraq within a tight deadline to disclose any weapons of mass destruction programmes.

An option of issuing an ultimatum to President Saddam Hussein to relinquish power is considered unlikely. This would be tantamount to a call for "regime change," which most of the 15 council members would reject as illegal, diplomats said.

UN backing is particularly important for Britain and other European nations that support the United States, which has amassed 250,000 troops in the Gulf for an attack many analysts believe will come in mid-March.

The build-up in advance of a possible attack prompted massive anti-war protests last weekend involving millions of people around the globe.

- NZPA / REUTERS

Herald feature: Iraq