Trench warfare over Iraq's destiny
By James Bone, Roland Watson and Philip Webster
US and Britain alone as China, France and Russia demand delay
Blair faces angry Labour party and anti-war march in London
BRITAIN and America are to persevere with plans for war against Iraq, even though Hans Blix’s disarmament report strengthened the opposition in the UN Security Council last night.
They will next week table a second UN resolution that could trigger conflict, in spite of Dr Blix’s suggestion that President Saddam Hussein could still be disarmed without force.
France, Russia and China seized on his report to the UN to press their case for the inspectors to be given more time and for Dr Blix to report back in a month’s time. But in a furious riposte to the weapons inspector’s report, Colin Powell insisted that there should be no backing away from the threat of military action. Saddam was still playing tricks, he said — hours after the Iraqi leader issued a decree banning the production and import of weapons of mass destruction.
Dr Blix’s report not only slowed the pace towards war, but also left Tony Blair facing the biggest challenge of his leadership as he decides whether to back America should President Bush act without UN backing. That would go against much of British public opinion and leave him open to the biggest revolt of his premiership.
The scale of the opposition he would face will be made plain this morning when the Prime Minister appears before a hostile party audience at the Labour spring conference in Glasgow and as hundreds of thousands of protesters march against war this afternoon.
Mr Blair and President Bush will hold urgent talks over the weekend, but they seem certain to press ahead with a second resolution, although diplomats thought this might be weaker than at one time seemed likely — possibly leaving out a direct threat of military action. To win UN backing, nine of the 15 Security Council members would have to vote for the resolution and none of the five permanent members exercise their veto.
Speaking after the Security Council meeting, General Powell said that there was still a chance for peace, but asked how long Iraq had to disarm, he replied: “We’re talking weeks.”
Dr Blix’s report to the Security Council was much more of a mixed bag than his first a fortnight ago. Although Iraq still had not accounted for large quantities of biological and chemical agents used to produce anthrax and VX gas, it was beginning to hand over documents, had allowed its scientists to talk to the inspectors without a minder present, and had agreed to surveillance flights by U2 spyplanes, he said.
Dr Blix also challenged General Powell’s satellite evidence suggesting that the Iraqis had “cleaned up” chemical sites before the inspectors arrived. He said that the film may have shown only “routine movements”.
The inspector concluded that with “immediate, active and unconditional” co-operation of the Baghdad regime, Iraq could still be disarmed through inspections in a “short” period of time.
France, Russia and China all said that the report proved that inspections were working and should be given more time. Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, said: “The use of force is not justified today; there is an alternative to war and that is to disarm Iraq through inspections.”
And in a retort to Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary who dismissed France and Germany as “old Europe”, M de Villepin declared: “France is an old country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. Faithful to its values, it believes in our ability to build together a better world.” His impassioned remarks were greeted with a burst of applause that is rare in the Security Council chamber.
But an exasperated General Powell, speaking without a script, told fellow foreign ministers: “So many of you would rather not have to face this issue, but it is an issue that must be faced.” And he reacted with sarcasm to Dr Blix’s report of Iraqi concessions. These, he said, were all tricks. “These are not responsible actions on the part of Iraq, these are consistent efforts to deceive, to deny, to divert, to throw us off the trail.”
The inspectors “are still being minded, they are still being bugged, they are still being watched, they still do not have the freedom of access they need to do their job.
“What we need is not more inspections. What we need is not more immediate access. What we need is immediate active full unconditional co-operation by Iraq. To this day we have not seen the level of co-operation that was expected, looked for, hoped for.”
Mr Straw said of the Iraqis: “They’ve lied, they’ve concealed, they’ve played games.” And he insisted that the Security Council had to be ready to back up its threat of “serious consequences”.
“This issue is not just about Iraq. It’s how we deal with proliferators elsewhere around the world. If we send out the message to proliferators elsewhere that defiance of the UN pays, it will not be peace that we will have secured.”
Britain and America may, however, have to tone down the language of a second resolution if they are to win majority support in the Security Council. Instead of threatening Iraq with “serious consequences” as planned, they may have to drop any reference to military action to win the backing of swaying countries.
A watered-down version would confine itself to declaring that Iraq was in “further material breach” of its obligations to the UN. It would refer back to Resolution 1441 which threatened “serious consequences” .
The White House meanwhile opened a fresh front, demanding that Iraq destroy rockets identified by Dr Blix as exceeding its prescribed limits.
Dr Blix confirmed that Iraq had developed an illegal missile capable of flying over the UN limit of 150km (90 miles) and had refurbished casting chambers to produce missile motors that had been banned and destroyed by inspectors before 1998.
Iraqi scientists were also refusing to be questioned on the UN’s terms. |
