US gives UN reasons for attacking Iraq

1.30pm

UNITED NATIONS - The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the UN Security Council today, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Gulf War.

Britain and Australia, the other two nations in the US-led coalition, wrote similar, shorter, letters to the 15-nation council.

None of the letters mentioned "regime change," an aim of the invasion but never authorised in any Security Council resolution.

It came after Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations wrote a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan maintaining that the US-led attack against his country was a violation of international law.

US Ambassador John Negroponte described the military operations as "substantial" to secure compliance of Iraq's disarmament obligations under a series of council resolutions including resolution 1441, adopted on November 8 that gave President Saddam Hussein one last chance to disarm.

"The government of Iraq decided not to avail itself of its final opportunity under resolution 1441 and has clearly committed additional violations," Negroponte said.

He noted that Resolution 687, adopted in April 1991, imposed disarmament obligations on Iraq that were conditions of the cease-fire at the end of the Gulf War when another US-led coalition drove Baghdad's troops from Kuwait.

"It has long been recognised and understood that a material breach of these obligations removes the basis of the cease-fire and revives the authority to use force under resolution 687," Negroponte wrote.

"In view of Iraq's material breaches, the basis for the cease-fire has been removed, and use of force is authorised."

He said Iraq had repeatedly refused to respond to diplomatic overtures, economic sanctions, and other peaceful means designed to bring about compliance with its obligations to disarm and allow inspections of its weapons programmes.

Consequently, military action was an "appropriate response" and "necessary steps to defend the United States and the international community from the threat posed by Iraq and to restore international peace and security in the area," Negroponte wrote.

"In carrying out these operations, our forces will take all reasonable precautions to avoid civilian casualties."

The legal justification for the invasion is in dispute among many nations as well as some international lawyers, who argue that the Security Council had to rule on a "material breach" or give specific authorisation for an invasion.

Mary Ellen O'Connell, an international law professor at Ohio State university, said the United States and Britain were attempting to "cobble together a legal basis for war by linking snatches of language or implications in the various resolutions."

She argued that the 1991 cease-fire resolution 687 contained a final paragraph that said the Security Council would decide on further measures but provided no authorisation for the use of force.

"Nor do subsequent resolutions," O'Connell said.

The letter from Iraq, Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri told Reuters Television, quoted US President George W Bush, saying "that he started the war."

Aldouri said he wanted the United Nations to show it was adhering to its charter. "This is a war of aggression ... a violation of international law," he said.

Iraq wants the council to reopen a debate on the US-led invasion and Syria, a council member, is contacting ambassadors to see if that is feasible, diplomats said.

Should the council turn it down, Indonesia wants to take the issue to the 191-member General Assembly, an official from Indonesia's UN mission said. Nations opposed to war will probably muster a majority in the assembly.

The war touched off a torrent of international protests led by France, Russia, Germany and China, They followed speeches by the foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany, who told the Security Council on Wednesday the United States was acting illegally by attacking Iraq and in its goal of overthrowing President Saddam Hussein.

"France regrets this action taken without the approval of the United Nations," President Jacques Chirac said in a televised address. "No matter how long this conflict lasts, it will have serious consequences for the future."

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Iraq presented no danger. The war was a "big political error" that flouted world opinion and international law, he said.

"This military action is unjustified ... there has been no answer to the main question which is: are there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and, if so, which ones," a grim-faced Putin told Russia's top ministers in the Kremlin.

On Wednesday Russian Foreign minister Igor Ivanov added his voice, saying there was "no indisputable evidence" showing Iraq threatened in the United States. If there were Russia would use "any means available" to eliminate such a threat.

But he said "the Security Council today is not in possession of such facts."

- REUTERS

Herald Feature: Iraq