The announcement by Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of the United Kingdom on behalf of the three countries came just minutes before the Council met in a closed session on diplomatic efforts to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
"We have had to conclude that Council consensus will not be possible," Ambassador Greenstock told reporters after a weekend of discussions were held on a British compromise setting strict disarmament tests for Iraq to meet within a strict timetable or else face serious consequences.
Speaking after the Council meeting, he said the draft would remain on the table but that for there to be a realistic consideration there would need to be "a very clear signal that Iraq and particularly the Iraqi leadership had taken a strategic decision to produce cooperation of the type we have not seen so far."
In his earlier statement, Ambassador Greenstock said: "One country in particular has underlined its intention to veto any ultimatum 'no matter what the circumstances.'" But the French representative later stressed that the UK-US-Spanish move ran counter to the wishes of the majority of Council members.
"That country rejected our proposed compromise before even the Iraqi Government itself and has put forward suggestions that would roll back on the unanimous agreement of the Council in resolution 1441, and those suggestions would amount to no ultimatum, no pressure and no disarmament," said Ambassador Greenstock. "Given this situation the co-sponsors have agreed that we will not pursue a vote on the draft UK-US-Spanish in blue."
He noted that the communiqués and press statements issued at the Azores summit between the US, UK and Spanish leaders yesterday explained the countries' position on the way forward. "The co-sponsors reserve their right to take their own steps to secure the disarmament of Iraq," he said.
"The Government of Iraq has clearly failed to comply. Our governments believe that through acts of omission and commission Iraq is now in further material breach. We advocated a second resolution because a united Council would have shown it was intent on enforcing resolution 1441 and disarming Iraq. We believe that the vote would have been close. I regret that in the face of an explicit threat to veto by a permanent member, the vote counting became a secondary consideration."
|Amb. de La Sablière|
"And now I understand that the cosponsors made some bilateral consultations last night and this morning and the result is that the majority of the Council confirms that they do not want to authorize the use of force. The majority considers that it would not be legitimate."