HUSSEIN - GO GO AHEAD

[Gość: INDEPENDENT]

World dispatch

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Once more unto the breach

Once weapons inspections begin, the fragile international consensus on Iraq
could easily shatter, writes Simon Tisdall.

Thursday November 14, 2002

Iraq's grudging formal acceptance of UN security council resolution (Unscr)
1441 means it has passed the first "test" set by the international community
in its renewed, US-led quest to obtain the disarmament of Saddam Hussein.
That the security council was able to achieve consensus on the terms and
conditions of a new UN inspection regime is on the face of it a welcome
success for diplomacy.

But these terms remain controversial and are open to interpretation. The
evident misgivings of some countries about the resolution, despite its
modification, suggests this unanimity is skin-deep and may prove temporary.

The UN vote also seemed to be a robust answer to US president George Bush,
who has repeatedly accused the UN of lacking the "backbone" to enforce its
own rules.

Bush has until now pursued his concerns about Iraq through the UN, rather
than launching into unilateral military action, which is a cause for some
quiet celebration by allies such as Britain.

The British prime minister, Tony Blair, and US secretary of state, Colin
Powell, had urged Bush to take the UN course. They will not be thanked for
their efforts by influential Pentagon hardliners led by the defence
secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

They believe no UN inspection and disarmament regime, however tough, can be
effective. They have not in any case relinquished the broader objective of
deposing Saddam. They believe these twin objectives are more likely to be met
by military intervention. For them, war remains not only inevitable but also
desirable. For that reason, they hope and expect the inspections process will
fail.

Thus, despite the UN agreement and the current focus on Hans Blix and his
weapons inspectors, who will formally resume their task next Monday in
Baghdad, it is clear the fierce argument over ways and means that preceded
the passage of Unscr 1441 is far from over.

Iraq's next "test" is to provide an inventory of all its weapons, says
Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw. "The next step is for Iraq to
provide an accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programmes by December 8," Mr Straw
says, or else it will face 1441s "severe consequences".

But the UN and in particular, the permanent security council members, are
heading towards the possibility of a much bigger test of their own. Iraqi
officials and European diplomats predict that the Baghdad regime will do
everything it can to demonstrate compliance with 1441 - there will be no
shooting over the heads of inspectors this time around, no locked doors or
off-limits sites.

International media will be encouraged to follow the progress of the
inspections. The weapons inventory sought by the UN has probably already been
compiled. It is likely to closely resemble the evidence handed over by Iraq
to the UN last month at a meeting in Vienna, presented in the form of four
CDs. These CDs are understood to detail Iraq's ownership of dual-use
technology, its various weapons-related components and equipment, and its
research facilities. Although, this is not the same as admitting to
possession of assembled, deployable, world-threatening WMD weapons, indeed
Iraq continues to insist adamantly that it possesses no such weapons - a
claim repeated in its inspections acceptance letter this week. By any
reckoning, this claim is going to be very difficult to disprove.

The big test for the security council, as the inspection process unfolds and
the Iraqis appear to be complying in all principal respects, will come if and
when the US decides that it nevertheless has evidence of non-compliance. Or,
that waxing impatient, US hawks try to provoke a crisis, for example, in the
northern or southern no-fly zones.

It is quite possible and indeed probable that there will be genuine
differences of opinion among the permanent five (P5) about whether Iraq, at
any given moment, has committed the sort of "material breach" that is a casus
belli under 1441.

It is quite possible that the US will say "Oh, yes, it has!" and France or
Russia will say "Oh, no, it hasn't!" Such pantomime will at least have a
seasonal air with the approach of Christmas.

It is entirely possible that Blix will report back to the council after 60
days, as mandated, and say that he has reached no firm conclusions and needs
more time to pursue his inquiries. If the P5 accept that assessment, bang
goes the Pentagon's war schedule. Suddenly, there will be a rather large
number of heavily-armed Americans sitting in and around the Gulf with not a
lot to do except sunbathe.

Naturally, the Pentagon and perhaps the White House will be disinclined to
accept such an outcome. It is also possible, though it is hoped this will not
happen, that US hardliners will use those parts of 1441 that do not relate
entirely to inspections to find other grounds for claiming a "material
breach".

Such a trigger can be found in 1441's operational paragraph eight that
states: "Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any
representative or personnel of the United Nations or of any member state
taking action to uphold any council resolution". The ruling applies
principally to the safety of the inspectors. It could also quite properly be
read as prohibiting any Iraqi anti-aircraft or missile battery action,
defensive or otherwise, against US or British aircraft currently patrolling
the no-fly zones and mandated to do so by previous UN resolutions.

Incidents involving the two sides in the zones have been taking place on a
regular basis in recent weeks. Now, if the Iraqis so much as illuminate an
allied plane with their radar, this could be claimed by the US hawks as a
cause for starting a war that may otherwise be slipping from their grasp.

It is easy to see how unwelcome and unacceptable such a claim might be to,
say, France or Russia or even Britain. It might constitute, in their view,
the very sort of "flimsy pretext" for war that UN secretary-general Kofi
Annan this week warned the Bush administration against. "Whatever reason we
decide to use military action, the circumstances must be seen as reasonable
and credible and not contrived and stretched," Annan warned. Put another way,
the world will have to be convinced.

So, despite all the manoeuvrings to achieve unanimity on 1441 and despite the
subsequent celebration of a successful exercise in multilateral diplomacy, it
all still comes down to this simple reality: unless Iraq unexpectedly
misbehaves egregiously or is caught red-handed in the coming weeks, the US
cannot count on international support for military action. The pressure will
be to continue down the diplomatic/inspection route.

If, dissatisfied and convinced of Iraqi cheating, the US tries to force the
issue without incontrovertible proof, the current P5 consensus will shatter.
France, Russia and others may just walk away and if the US then decides to go
to war anyway, as it insists it has the right to do, the situation will be
back to where it was last summer and Washington will, take or leave the odd
Brit and Arab client, be on its own.

This will hardly surprise or worry the Pentagon hawks. They have said all
along that going through the UN and consulting the international community
was a waste of time.

In the manner of England's Henry V before the battered walls of Harfleur,
their battle cry will ring out: "Once more unto the material breach, dear
friends, once more? for America and