Following is the text of Cunningham's statement:

USUN PRESS RELEASE

July 3, 2001

Statement by Ambassador James B. Cunningham, Acting U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on the Iraq Humanitarian Program, in the Security Council, July 3, 2001

Mr. President,

The United States worked hard to pass a different sort of resolution today, one that would have benefited the Iraqi people and the Gulf region. We could have, and as Council, should have, done better -- and we all know why that was not possible.

Our proposal is simple: lift the controls on purely civilian trade while maintaining the focus on the military items and technologies which must be controlled so that Iraq cannot restore its weapons of mass destruction programs, nor threaten its neighbors.

We have achieved considerable success. Resolution 1352 registered Council consensus on the main elements of a new approach, one that would serve as a bridge between the current situation and that day when Iraq implements Resolution 1284 and all other relevant Council resolutions. Iraq however clearly wishes this approach blocked, and prefers the status quo, with the humanitarian program and across the board.

There is broad support within the Council for U.S. and U.K. efforts to implement this proposal. And we will continue. Last week, after a month of detailed discussions, we produced the Goods Review List, which is central to the new approach. That list is supported by four of the Permanent Five members and merits the support of all Council members, including Russia. It is the vital step forward in providing the basis for adoption of the U.K. draft resolution. That resolution remains under active consideration, and the Council should enact it as soon as possible.

Mr. President,

It is now apparent that agreement in the Council to change radically our approach to Iraq is not only desirable, but achievable. It would have been adopted today, save for the threat of a veto. But a veto would bring our work to a halt, and thus would be a victory for Iraq.

Therefore, my delegation agrees to this rollover of the Oil-For-Food program, while we consolidate and build on the success we have achieved thus far. Our reluctance stems not from lack of commitment or belief in the Oil-For-Food program or the remarkable work of the UN in carrying that program out, which we believe represents both high ideals and world class performance by the Program Director and his colleagues. Rather, our disappointment stems from the opportunity we, the Council, have lost for the time being.

The biggest losers of the failure to move forward are not the U.K., the United States, or the vast majority of Council members who favor this new approach. The ones that have lost the most are in fact the Iraqi people. The revisions we propose would facilitate trade and accelerate commerce. They would improve the lot of Iraq's people.

We will use the time before the next rollover to press ahead with our approach. We have made considerable progress and have come too close to agreement to concede the field to Baghdad. My delegation began this effort seeking to restore a Council consensus that would help Iraq's people and stand firm against Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors. Our strongest weapon is Council unity and this rollover provides more time for those who agree with our approach to help us build support to achieve that goal.

Thank you, Mr. President.