[an error occurred while processing this directive]
BBC News
watch One-Minute World News
Last Updated:  Thursday, 27 February, 2003, 10:18 GMT
Can a second UN resolution succeed?
The US and UK have presented a draft resolution to other members of the United Nations Security Council that paves the way for military intervention in Iraq.

The resolution comes as France and Germany renew their calls for the UN weapons inspectors to be given more time to carry out their work in Iraq.

With some of the permanent members of the Security Council openly against the war can the second resolution succeed? Are the calls for the new resolution on Iraq premature? Tell us what you think.

This topic was suggested by Clara Matonhodze, Zimbabwe/USA
Should war take place in Iraq, would the UN still be a viable entity?

This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.

Your reaction:

As happened when the UN voted in the resolution which led to the Gulf War and the recent resolution 1441, the US and UK will buy the votes they need by pressuring the members through economic and commercial interests. You just have to remember what happened to Yemen in 1990, who voted against a resolution in 1990, and the US withdrew immediately US$70m in aid! France may still veto, but even it can't afford to lose a grip on its existing interests in Iraqi oil. The UN should stand for "Undermined Nations" considering how US/UK diplomacy will work to get its war!
Tahir, UK

It is time to let the freedom fighters set the people of Iraq free. France and Germany have historically had no principles and still don't.
Hendrik de Boer, USA

The best solution is to have an open debate between Bush and Saddam. Bush should grasp the opportunity offered by Saddam. In this way, the world will be able to gauge who is talking rubbish!!
Kamarudin, Malaysia

There should never be any war
R. Krishna, Australia/India/Sicily
Somebody has armed Saddam Hussein and whoever has armed him should destroy all of his weapons. I do not feel the people of Iraq should suffer in any war. The weapons destruction is between the leader and his supplier and the United Nations Security Council. The people are innocent and therefore there should never be any war. France's position is the best position.
R. Krishna, Australia/India/Sicily

The US and UK should concentrate more on North Korea which has publicly admitted to having nuclear weapons and leave the Iraqis take care of Saddam. It is too bad North Korea has no oil that runs through it...
Andre Thomas, Canada

It will be a serious mistake if the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) appeases George W. Bush and passes a war resolution. The UNSC--the closest thing to a world government--must listen to the voices of people around the world. The citizens of the world have spoken and continue to speak with one voice: no to war. They do not trust Bush's leadership of the world and they fear that his right wing politics may put everyone in jeopardy. The UNSC must act on behalf of the people of the world.
Abdulah, Yemen

The UN has become a debate club for countries personal interests
Leif, USA
Inspections will never work. The UN has become a debate club for countries personal interests. Every country has its own agenda. France, Russia and Germany are concerned about oil leases with Saddam and their economies. Honestly I feel the US & UK has more evidence than released. Hey I don't want my tax dollars paying for a war but if it will brighten the future for the world, my daughter and Iraq's people so be it.
Leif, US

Would you rather wait until Saddam has unleashed his weapons before we do anything? Pray God either Saddam gives up his weapons or we disarm him and free the world, not least his own people, of this threat.

No, the Security Council should not pass another resolution. The inspectors should be given as much time as they need. Iraq claims to have an open hand, this must be proven one way or another before action should be taken. We are talking about taking human life, destroying the birthplace of civilization. The inspectors should be given full support in their search and all sanctions should be lifted while they are in the country.
B J Burton, Canada

The UN has become a toothless giant, incapable of enforcing any resolutions. Saddam is playing the world and Europe like a piano. His little concerto is doing more to damage relationships that have taken years to forge than any war will. Saddam is a threat and a danger to the region. I say to pull our troops out of there and bring them home, but don't call to us for help when his cancer spreads first through the Middle East and then into Europe and Asia.
Mike, USA

Pray God France, Russia and China stand firm
Charles, Germany
This is not just about war. This is about a pre-emptive war. Nobody has been attacked. Nobody has been threatened. One country has been whipping up fear and frenzy for months. If the UN gives blessing to the USA, then God help us all. One superpower who will buy, browbeat and bully others into agreeing with its imperialistic ambitions, is the biggest threat to world peace today. Pray God France, Russia and China stand firm.
Charles, Germany

Twelve years on since Saddam was given 12 days to disarm, four months on from when the UN threatened 'serious consequences' if Iraq didn't finally and fully comply - and still Iraq hasn't complied or faced serious consequences. It's all a bit a farcical/corrupt. Let's just hope that the war's a short one.
David, UK

Yes, I believe more rigorous inspections can work, but there does not seem to be any chance of a peaceful solution. I think Tony Blair is too deeply involved in the situation for him to pull out.
John, Canada

No more time - pass the resolution and do what needs to be done
Tony Bunting, UK
Having wavered over the last few weeks I'm now sure that war is the only option. Saddam refuses to destroy his missiles, one more example of his defiance - how much time does he need to comply. I say no more time - pass the resolution and do what needs to be done. Incidentally, having read the UK/US resolution, can anyone tell me what the last line means : "Decides to remain seized of the matter." - er, huh!?!
Tony Bunting, UK

The Resolution will not succeed. It will help to polarise the U.N. Security Council more.This is not in anyone's interest, least of all the Iraqi people. What it does show is the complete lack of vision of the Bush/Blair axis. Saddam is effectively neutered,but the antics of Blair/Bush (bullying and warmongering) is destroying the whole ethos of the U.N.
Martin O'Reilly, Ireland

The whole attitude of Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld teaches us, the terrorists won. There's no room anymore for arguments and humanity. It's just a "kill them all" mentality - no matter what. Or can we really be so naive to think Iraq is a threat to the US?
Lars L, Sweden

At the end of the day, if all else fails, then Saddam/Iraq will have to disarm by force. The operative phrase is "if all else fails". Since war is a very, very serious business involving the loss of a lot of civilian lives and severe hardship for many, surely a second resolution plus more time for the inspectors, is a small price to pay. After all, this crisis has been dragging on for several years, so what harm, say, is a few more weeks going to do?
Alan Hall, UK

In my view this resolution should never have been blocked - messing around by both sides . The US and Iraq have turned this whole political episode into a sham. The US constantly undermine the efforts of PM Tony Blair by rushing things along, geared only for war. European correspondence could never have been remotely obtained if it weren't for the constant efforts of Tony Blair
John Bamford, UK

The fact that a second resolution is necessary after 12 years of inactivity illustrates how useless the UN is
Terry, Australia
The fact that a second resolution is considered necessary after 1441 and 12 years of inactivity illustrates how useless the UN is. Bottom line? The world needs a disarmed Iraq without Saddam in charge. So, notwithstanding the inaction of the UN, America will have to do the job with help from its true friends.
Terry, Australia

No, not at all. The US, according to the first resolution, doesn't need it anyway. How the rest of the world feels about this war doesn't matter to G W Bush or Tony Blair for that matter.
James, USA

A second resolution will not succeed because France and Germany are not so ill-informed that they cannot understand that the US is simply pushing for recognition of material breach of Resolution 1441. Even if Iraq has broken resolution 1441 by a few yards the rest of the Security Council is not ready to go to war over it, especially since we have evidence that inspections are working.
Ryan Juskus, USA

The problem in my opinion lies directly with Saddam and the and the crimes he has committed against his own people. He needs to be brought to book. War is not the first option. Deal with the problem that is Saddam.
David Jackson, South Africa

To those who truly believe this is about helping the Iraqi people, I would remind you that close to a million Iraqi civilians have died (particularly children) through radiation induced diseases; thanks to extensive use of depleted uranium in the first oil war, and the crippling sanctions which inconvenienced Saddam not at all.
Dan M, UK

The new resolution has been placed as much to test Iraq as to test the United Nations
Ken, UK
The German government was voted into power on a strong anti-war mandate so will not support military action for fear of losing face with the German electorate; and the French have major business interests in Iraq, and know they will lose them if Saddam is overthrown, not to mention the possible uncovering of sanction breaking trading between Iraq and France to get those oil rights in the first place. If Saddam fails to start destroying his missiles and manufacturing complexes, this will leave the French with no place to turn, and they will drop their memorandum. The new resolution has been placed as much to test Iraq as to test the United Nations, and in a week we will see if either body has intentions of following through with their promises.
Ken, UK

The Iraqi's will be incredibly grateful for their liberation. Countries such as Germany and France side with a corrupt dictator at the expense of human rights and freedom. They should no way seek to sabotage a second UN resolution. It is a sad state of affairs that the US has to buy the votes of members who should be more concerned about securing peace in the region and liberating the Iraqi people. It is damning that these nations lack principles. People should not blame the US.
Daniel, UK

It can only succeed if the UN and countries like the US and UK treat all UN resolutions the same. How can we expect Iraq to abide by UN resolutions when Israel on a daily basis flouts the numerous resolutions against it. This double standard is totally undermining the UN. Who is to blame? The US is - they veto resolutions against Israel and now push for resolutions against Iraq.
Saleem Khan, UK

Which is the better offer?
22376 Votes Cast
Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion

Battle ahead on Iraq resolution
24 Feb 03 |  Europe
UN set-backs for US
22 Feb 03 |  Middle East

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites


News Front Page | Africa | Americas | Asia-Pacific | Europe | Middle East | South Asia
UK | Business | Entertainment | Science/Nature | Technology | Health
Have Your Say | In Pictures | Week at a Glance | Country Profiles | In Depth | Programmes
Americas Africa Europe Middle East South Asia Asia Pacific