|
Friday, November 15, 2002
09:00 a.m.
Resolution 1441 - a language puzzle
As a novice in the arcana of diplomatic communications in general, and UN Security Council Resolutions in particular, I am loath to suggest substance where there may merely be shadow. But (as Grotius never quite said) there seems to be something fishy going on here.
The 105 Day Report
First, though the Resolution was popularly sold as relating to an UNMOVIC/IAEA inspection and subsequent report back to the UNSC on Iraqi WMDs, that is not how the Resolution is structured.
One gets the requirement (para 3) of the Iraqi declaration relating to its WMD systems within 30 days of the passing of the Resolution (R+30).
But then (in para 4) a provision for false statements or omissions, which are to be treated as a material breach and reported to the Council for action under paras 11/12.
Para 5 lays out the rights that Iraq is to grant the inspection team in carrying out their mission; and
and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
Paras 6-10 enumerate more rights the team is to have in doing their job; impose the 7 day limit on Iraqi acceptance, etc.
Para 11 says the Council
[d]irects [the team] to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution.
And para 12 that the Council
[d]ecides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
Para 13 mentions the serious consequences of Iraqi non-compliance.
And that's it.
The meat of the resolution is in paras 11-13 - but the (not so?) strange thing is that those paragraphs are directed to the case of Iraqi non-compliance provided for in the Resolution.
The report due under para 5 - which has established the idea of 105 days in the popular imagination as a time-limit for its preparation - plays no part in paras 11-13. In particular, there is no provision, in para 12 or elsewhere, for a meeting of the UNSC to be called to consider the 105 Day Report.
The general assumption (in the text as, no doubt, in real life) is that Saddam will not be able to last 105 days without committing a breach of his obligations sufficient to trigger a report under either para 4 or para 11, resulting in serious consquences being visited on Saddam for that breach (as opposed to any WMD capability the 105 Day Report might ultimately find).
The Language Puzzle
However otiose the requirement for the 105 Day Report may eventually prove, it got me to compare the English text of para 5 with the French and Spanish versions (the limit of my linguistic versatility - and that's pushing it!) To my monolingual eye, the meanings are not identical.
In French, the reporting requirement is this:
donne pour instruction à la Commission et demande à l'AIEA de reprendre les inspections au plus tard 45 jours après l'adoption de la présente résolution et de le tenir informé dans les 60 jours qui suivront.
In Spanish,
y encomienda a la UNMOVIC y pide al OIEA que reanuden las inspecciones dentro de los cuarenta y cinco dias siguientes a la aprobación de la presente resolución y que le pongan al corriente dentro de los sesenta dias siguientes a esa fecha.
First, note that in both French and Spanish, the requirement is to tenir informé and pongan al corriente; as I understand it, these imply regular updates, keeping in touch, a continuing activity on the part of the inspection teams.
Whereas, in English, the requirement is
to update the Council 60 days thereafter
A one-shot deal; whereas use of an expression like keep the Council informed of the situation would be both idiomatic (in UN-speak, at least!) and adequately translate the French and Spanish texts.
Second, note the difference in the expression of the time periods. From which date does the 60 day period run?
It's assumed (in arriving at the 105 day period) that it is to start immediately on the expiry of the 45 day period. But is that correct?
In English first. The key word thereafter could refer to at least three different dates:
- R+105 in all cases - that is the general assumption.
- R+60 in all cases - ie, thereafter refers to adoption of this resolution (taken as referring to the date ot the adoption).
- 60 days after the actual date on which UNMOVIC/IAEA resume inspections.
The third interpretation seems to me more natural. The second is pretty weak.
In French, the use of the future suivront rather militates against Option 2, but leaves the other two options open.
In Spanish, the key words are siguientes a esa fecha. Now, the only date mentioned is the 45 day limit on commencement of inspections; and (though no Spanish scholar!) I believe that esa would be appropriate to refer to that date. Which would tend towards favouring Option 1.
Where's the beef?
That's all very well - you are no doubt thinking! - but what's the relevance to the War?
Only that whenever the story being fed differs from the facts that can be discerned by the very rudimentary investigatory expertise and resources of such as me, a legitimate question is raised. (I've used before in the context of the War the analogy of the clued-up patient: up to questioning his doctor, but not to diagnosing himself!)
Perhaps it's obvious (looking through the other end of the telescope) that the 105 Day Report is unlikely to play any significant part in war decision-making. (Counting 105 days from November 8 2002 gets us to February 21 2003, by my count - rather late to start the air attack, one would have thought.) But it's interesting to have the text confirm that.
And any suggestion of a discrepancy in meaning between versions of UNSCRs in different languages naturally recalls the controversy over Resolution 242.
Moreover, UNSCR 1441 was not put together in five minutes. A listing of draft texts shows that the wording of para 5 was thought of quite early in the day in an American draft of October 22. The assumption must be that nothing is in the resolution text by chance.
The fact that there is provision for the Council receiving ad hoc reports of Iraqi compliance, but not for it receiving the grand, done-up-in-ribbons 105 Day Report is strange - perhaps no more. But certainly not a drafting flaw.
And the argument that Bush doesn't need the UN anyway, while perfectly true, rather proves too much on this particular point. Not only in the sense that, if he doesn't need the UN, why is he bothering with 1441. But also, if labouring over the exact wording of the resolution is merely a matter of a Franco-Russian ego trip, why did the US fight so hard?
That's as far as this rank layman can take it. I strongly suspect diplomatic sleight of hand, but the the prestidigitation is too swift for my untrained eyes!
|
