IRAQ: NIGERIAN RESPONSE TO SECRETARY POWELL'S

C O N F I D E N T I A L ABUJA 000353

SIPDIS


DEPARTMENT FOR IO, AF AND AF/W
NSC FOR JFRAZER


E.O. 12958: DECL:02/16/2013
TAGS: PREL IZ NI UNSC
SUBJECT: IRAQ: NIGERIAN RESPONSE TO SECRETARY POWELL'S
FEBRURARY 14 ADDRESS TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL

REF: STATE 44467
ABUJA 344
ABUJA 300


CLASSIFIED BY AMBASSADOR HOWARD F. JETER. REASON: 1.5 (B).



1. (C) The Ambassador February 16 conveyed Ref A message to
Ad'Obe Obe, International Affairs Special Advisor to Nigerian
President Olusegun Obasanjo. In view of Obasanjo's stance
(Ref B) that Iraq must disarm but that disarmament had to be
accomplished through the Security Council, the Ambassador did
not request Nigeria to speak at the Open Meeting scheduled for
February 18.



2. (C) Obe did not offer a substantive responses to Ref A
points that went beyond Obasanjo's earlier public (para 3) and
private (Ref B) statements. Generally, Obe echoed the points
contained in para 2 of Ref C.



3. (U) There follows the text of Obasanjo's public remarks.
Begin text:


Question:


We have watched the drama unfolding for some weeks now. Ex-
President Nelson Mandela has criticized the biggest democracy
in the world with what can be described as militant foreign
policy. What is the position of Nigeria with regard to the
present behavior of the US government and Britain? You said
your government will dwell on policies that will bring global
peace, justice and equity.


Answer:


First, let me say this; when I was in the United Nation's
General Assembly in September last year, I had a meeting with
the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell and one of the
issues we discussed was the US and Iraq. By then, the US had
not gone to the United Nation's Security Council. And I don't
know whether it was inclined to go there. But I made it clear
and it's not me alone. Others probably did; that we will want
the US to go to the UN Security Council and that any action
that will be taken against any country for that matter, but
particularly against Iraq, must be a collective decision of
the UN Security Council. It was after that the US went to the
UN Security Council.


Whatever may be the concern of the US and one may say with
some element of understanding that a country that regarded
itself as impregnable that was taken up one morning on
9/11/2001 and from the blues a country that thought that it
was defended by land, by air, by sea, was made so cheaply
attacked but if that worries the US which is understandable,
the US also should realize that it is the only superpower in
the world now and whereas it may want to do things and damn
the consequences, then it must think of the repercussions of
damning the consequences.


Well, on the other hand, the concern for non-proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction is the concern of all of us, not
just the concern of the US, so if, as it has now been the
case, the 15 members of the Security Council on behalf of all
of us who are members of the United Nations ask Iraq to
disarm, I believe that Iraq will be better advised to disarm
peacefully and totally, peacefully and totally.


Then the inspectors who have been given the opportunity to
look at every nook and corner must also be given time to do
their job. I even say that, well, we still have probably what
I can call "quarter to". Now, within that short space of
quarter to, the world can still bring sanity on both sides.
Sanity on the side of Iraq to do what it should do.


Again, I have had the opportunity to say that the Americans
now have at least 200,000 troops in the Gulf area. If the
President of the most powerful nation in the world has done
that, now, you have to give him reason to withdraw those
troops without a loss of face, and the only reason you can
give is to be able to say, yes, what we should have achieved
by attacking or by bombing, we have achieved by the threat of
that force, therefore there is no need to launch that force
into battle or into war.
End Text.
JETER