UN: Eckhard on Iraq's Questions and Talks

. . .

**Questions and Answers

. . .

Question: Concerning the dates of the Iraqi talks, can you give us a little background as to how those are arrived at, what the significance is of having two days, what the agenda or cast of characters might be?

Spokesman: These dates were originally proposed by the Secretary-General at the end of the last round of talks. We only heard from the Iraqis, I believe, on Friday confirming that they would be here on those dates. I think the Secretary-General himself felt that two days rather than one might be necessary. He’s hoping for substantive and focused discussion specifically of the issue of the return of arms inspectors to Iraq. I don’t have the delegations. I assume it would be similar to what we had in the first round but as soon as I get that information, I’ll give it to you.

Follow-up Question: Have they indicated anything about a possible third session after that?

Spokesman: I haven’t heard mention of a third session but I couldn’t exclude it. I just haven’t heard it mentioned.

Follow-up Question: Is there any sort of schedule for the sessions on the 18 and 19?

Spokesman: I have no further details at this time.

Question: What does the Secretary-General hope the Security Council does with the questions submitted to the Council on behalf of Iraq?

Spokesman: I think he’s submitting them for Council members' information, and a number of them of course would have to be answered by the Council. It wouldn’t be for the Secretary-General to answer. Whether the Council intends to do that formally or informally or at all, I don’t know. You’ll have to check with them.

Follow-up Question: Does he think that they should answer because the United States said they were?

Spokesman: He’s just submitted the questions to them without giving his views.

. . .

Question: Would you say that the Secretary-General would be expecting answers to those questions by the time the talks start?

Spokesman: No, I didn’t say that at all. I have no comment other than to say that he’s passed on the questions. It’s up to the Council to deal with it. He’s not expressed any preference or given any timetable.

. . .

Question: Would the Secretary-General want the answers back from the Council by April 10?

Spokesman: I’m not aware of that. I’d have to double check.

Question: Do you see this as the last round? What does he want to see that would make him say, let’s keep talking?

Spokesman: He’s the intermediary here. The issue is between the Security Council, which has demanded certain things of Iraq, and Iraq, which has refused to comply. Iraq has now signaled to the Secretary-General, let’s talk about compliance. The Secretary-General is not empowered by the Council to negotiate anything less than full compliance. So, what he hopes for is Iraq signaling to him, or to the Council through him, that they’re ready to comply fully.

. . .

As of August 2006, Iraq Watch is no longer being updated. Click here for more information.

Search WMD profiles Iraqi entities of concern Iraq's suppliers UN documents Government documents Controlled items Perspectives	BRIEFING BY FRED ECKHARD SPOKESMAN FOR THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL UNITED NATIONS Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General March 25, 2002 Excerpts . . . Iraq Talks We can now confirm that the next round of talks between the Secretary-General and the Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri will take place on 18 and 19 April here in New York. . . . Questions and Answers . . . Question: Concerning the dates of the Iraqi talks, can you give us a little background as to how those are arrived at, what the significance is of having two days, what the agenda or cast of characters might be? Spokesman: These dates were originally proposed by the Secretary-General at the end of the last round of talks. We only heard from the Iraqis, I believe, on Friday confirming that they would be here on those dates. I think the Secretary-General himself felt that two days rather than one might be necessary. He’s hoping for substantive and focused discussion specifically of the issue of the return of arms inspectors to Iraq. I don’t have the delegations. I assume it would be similar to what we had in the first round but as soon as I get that information, I’ll give it to you. Follow-up Question: Have they indicated anything about a possible third session after that? Spokesman: I haven’t heard mention of a third session but I couldn’t exclude it. I just haven’t heard it mentioned. Follow-up Question: Is there any sort of schedule for the sessions on the 18 and 19? Spokesman: I have no further details at this time. Question: What does the Secretary-General hope the Security Council does with the questions submitted to the Council on behalf of Iraq? Spokesman: I think he’s submitting them for Council members' information, and a number of them of course would have to be answered by the Council. It wouldn’t be for the Secretary-General to answer. Whether the Council intends to do that formally or informally or at all, I don’t know. You’ll have to check with them. Follow-up Question: Does he think that they should answer because the United States said they were? Spokesman: He’s just submitted the questions to them without giving his views. . . . Question: Would you say that the Secretary-General would be expecting answers to those questions by the time the talks start? Spokesman: No, I didn’t say that at all. I have no comment other than to say that he’s passed on the questions. It’s up to the Council to deal with it. He’s not expressed any preference or given any timetable. . . . Question: Would the Secretary-General want the answers back from the Council by April 10? Spokesman: I’m not aware of that. I’d have to double check. Question: Do you see this as the last round? What does he want to see that would make him say, let’s keep talking? Spokesman: He’s the intermediary here. The issue is between the Security Council, which has demanded certain things of Iraq, and Iraq, which has refused to comply. Iraq has now signaled to the Secretary-General, let’s talk about compliance. The Secretary-General is not empowered by the Council to negotiate anything less than full compliance. So, what he hopes for is Iraq signaling to him, or to the Council through him, that they’re ready to comply fully. . . .