Where council members standCompiled from Times wires
© St. Petersburg Times
published March 8, 2003
Here's a look at the different views held by the 15 Security Council members regarding potential military action in Iraq:
The five permanent members with veto power:
THE UNITED STATES: Maintains Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, is failing to cooperate with weapons inspectors, and is violating its obligations under U.N. resolutions. Washington says it already has authorization to use force to disarm Iraq but is co-sponsoring a resolution that would give military action explicit U.N. backing.
RUSSIA: Is co-sponsoring a proposal to continue U.N. inspections at least into July. Says there is no evidence Iraq is rearming. Joined forces with France and Germany this week and vowed to block any resolution that authorizes force.
CHINA: Has said it believes inspections are starting to work and Iraq can be disarmed peacefully. Supports proposal to give inspectors at least four more months to do their jobs. Would like a compromise to maintain Security Council unity but has thrown its support behind Russia and France.
BRITAIN: Is co-sponsoring the resolution that would give U.N. approval for military action. It would consider compromise proposals as long as the authorization for force stands. Says Iraq is not cooperating or disarming and that time is running out for it to do so through weapons inspections.
FRANCE: The main opponent of war now, it is co-sponsoring the proposal to continue weapons inspections. Says inspections are starting to work and sees no justification for military action or a new resolution now. Says it would block any resolution authorizing military action at this stage.
The 10 elected members without veto power:
ANGOLA: Hopes for a compromise that would preserve council unity and wants all possibilities for Iraq's peaceful disarmament exhausted before authorizing the military option.
BULGARIA: Believes Iraq is not cooperating with its obligations and could support a short deadline for Saddam Hussein to comply with outstanding disarmament issues. Considered to be in the U.S. camp and could support a U.S.-led military intervention without Security Council authorization.
CAMEROON: Hopes for a compromise between supporters and opponents of military authorization. Would like the U.S.-backed resolution changed to say that Iraq has not yet taken the final opportunity to disarm peacefully, instead of saying it has failed to use its last chance.
CHILE: Wants the five permanent members to agree on how to disarm Iraq. Would prefer a peaceful solution or compromise. Likes the idea of a short deadline for Iraq to meet key disarmament demands.
GUINEA: Supports continued inspections and would like to see council agreement.
GERMANY: Insists Iraq must be disarmed peacefully. Is co-sponsoring a proposal to continue inspections. Has said it will not participate in any military intervention, even if the Security Council authorizes such action.
MEXICO: Calls for the urgent disarmament of Iraq and could support the U.S.-backed resolution. But also joins with Chile in wanting the permanent members to compromise.
PAKISTAN: Wants a peaceful solution but could support the U.S.-backed resolution.
SYRIA: Insists Iraq is cooperating with its obligations under U.N. resolutions, opposes any new resolution and has said sanctions against Baghdad should be lifted.
SPAIN: Supports the Bush administration's stance on Iraq and is co-sponsoring the resolution to authorize military action. Believes military intervention could proceed without Security Council authorization.
© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727-893-8111
From the Times wire desk
From the AP