BY ROHAN PEARCE
On February 14, White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer made a valiant but unsuccessful attempt to argue that the report by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix to the UN Security Council earlier that day provided more justification for a US attack: "The world still has great cause for concern about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons. That's what came out of [the UN headquarters at] New York today."
On the contrary, and much to Washington's chagrin, Blix's report did not provide the "trigger" for war that Washington had demanded. In fact, Blix confirmed that — after more than 400 inspections of more than 300 sites in Iraq — no evidence had been found to support US and British claims that Baghdad possesses biological and chemical weapons, or is developing nuclear weapons.
Blix told the council that the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission "has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed" (a dozen 1980s-era rocket shells found discarded in an munitions storage facility, and a handful of the same type discovered later by Iraq).
Blix reiterated the conclusion of his January 27 report to the Security Council that Iraq was allowing "access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure", including access to sites "that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences".
However, Blix did echo Washington's demand that Iraq provide "proof" of its unilateral destruction of biological and chemical munitions following the 1991 Gulf War, as well as weapons destroyed by US bombs during that war.
Despite the logistical problems of providing such evidence, Blix reported that "a letter of 12 February from Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate may be of relevance. It presents a list of 83 names of participants 'in the unilateral destruction in the chemical field, which took place in the summer of 1991'... The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission, which had been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads, had had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items. This was welcomed." The Iraqi government has also established a commission to search "all over Iraq for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programs".
However, Blix distanced himself from Washington's illogical assertions that, because some prohibited items remain "unaccounted for", Iraq must retain prohibited weapons. "One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist", Blix stated. "However, that possibility is also not excluded."
Missile controversy
Blix referred to the findings of a UN-convened panel that claimed Iraq's new "al Samoud 2" missiles are "capable of exceeding 150 kilometres in range" — the maximum range allowed under Security Council resolutions 687 and 715. Blix acknowledged, however, that the al Samoud 2 project, along with the al Fatah missile project, were included in Iraq's December 7 weapons declaration.
According to the February 12 New York Times, Russia's deputy foreign minister Yuri Fedotov said that the "exceeding of the range was declared" by Iraq and should be considered "as an example of cooperation" with the inspectors.
The al Samoud 2 missiles are alleged to have a range that exceeds the proscribed maximum by 30 kilometres. Iraqi government officials have stated, however, that the range of the rockets will be reduced once guidance systems and other equipment are fitted.
An Associated Press report on February 13 noted that "Blix reported [to the Security Council] last month that there had been 40 tests on the al Samoud 2 and it went beyond the maximum permitted range 13 times, once to 114 miles [184 kilometres]". Even if al Samoud 2 missiles consistently reached this range, they would fall far short of Israel.
Blix's latest report discredited Powell's assertion on February 5 that Baghdad had known about inspections before they occurred, enabling sites to be "sanitised" before the UNMOVIC teams arrived. In his February 5 presentation to the Security Council, Powell displayed satellite images which he claimed proved that Iraq had removed evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
Blix commented: "We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection... In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."
Director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei also gave a report to the Security Council on February 14. "As I have reported on numerous occasions, the IAEA concluded, by December 1998, that it had neutralised Iraq's past nuclear program and that, therefore, there were no unresolved disarmament issues left at that time". ElBaradei reminded the delegates. "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq", he added.
Reaction
Responding to the Blix report, French foreign minister Dominique De Villepin said that "the use of force is not justified at this time" and called for "disarmament" through further inspections. De Villepin also noted that in "the ballistic missile domain, the information provided by Iraq had enabled the inspectors to make progress". He added that UN inspectors should be allowed "the time they need for their mission to succeed". France called for another report to be presented to the Security Council on March 14.
Russia's foreign minister Igor Ivanov told the council that Blix's report showed there was a "unique opportunity to solve the problems by peaceful means", while China's representative, Tang Jiaxuan, echoed the views of France and Russia.
In his response to Blix's report, a perplexed Powell stated: "We cannot allow this [inspections] process to be endlessly strung out as Iraq is trying to do right now... My friends, they cannot be allowed to get away with it again.
"We now are in a situation where Iraq's continued non-compliance and failure to cooperate ... requires this council to begin to think through the consequences of walking away from this problem ... in the very near future, we will have to consider whether or not we've reached that point where this council ... [must consider] whether or not it is time to consider serious consequences of the kind intended by [Security Council resolution] 1441...
"And, if it comes to it, invoking the serious consequences called for ... in 1441. 1441 is about disarmament and compliance and not merely a process of inspections that goes on forever without ever resolving the basic problem."
The New York Times reported on February 14 that "the Bush administration is drafting a UN Security Council resolution with Britain declaring that Saddam Hussein has failed to disarm and must now face unspecified 'consequences', senior administration officials said".
Russia's President Vladimir Putin was quoted in the French press on February 13 as saying that "if necessary" Russia would veto any war resolution submitted to the Security Council. France too has warned that it may veto such a "premature" resolution.
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, February 19, 2003.
Visit the