Saddam blinks first on weapons inspectors

By RUPERT CORNWELL

WASHINGTON - Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's latest gambit, acceding to the unconditional return of United Nations weapons inspectors, is a classic from his repertoire.

Under unprecedented United States pressure, and amid signs that the hostility of the Arab world might be crumbling, Saddam has moved more quickly than last time.

The last great crisis over inspections culminated in the Anglo-American bombing campaign of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, but only after more than 12 months of manoeuvring and brinkmanship in which Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, even went to Baghdad to secure a deal which quickly fell through.

Blatant prevarication this time was not in order.

The US had made clear that without action by the UN Security Council, and a satisfactory response by Iraq, it would take matters into its own hands, with the backing of those countries, notably Britain, that chose to join it.

Ever the adroit tactician, Saddam has moved swiftly, at the very moment US Secretary of State Colin Powell and his team were starting to prepare a draft resolution, containing at the very least a specific deadline for the unconditional and unfettered return of the inspectors and, if possible, unequivocal language spelling out that if not, military action was the inevitable consequence.

Assuming Saddam is as good as his word, the first part of the resolution should become simpler. The latter, however, may be more problematic, as countries on the 15-member Security Council less supportive of the use of force press for Baghdad to be granted more time to satisfy the inspectors.

The White House's reaction, labelling Baghdad's move a tactic to raise false hope, shows an even greater determination to hold Saddam's feet to the fire.

"We intend to go forward with our resolution," a senior State Department official said.

"The resolution should find Iraq in breach of its obligations, if that remains the case. It should point a way forward in terms of what Iraq needs to do and should make clear what will happen if Iraq doesn't go that way," he said, adding that only concerted world pressure and the threat of military action had made Saddam blink.

The last thing Washington wants is a repetition of the events of 1997/98: a long crisis culminating in several days of air strikes that resolved nothing.

The announcement leaves a host of questions unanswered.

It would appear Baghdad has dropped the demand contained in its first response to US President George W. Bush's speech to the General Assembly, that inspections be accompanied by a lifting of sanctions.

But that condition may once more be raised.

More importantly, what does "unconditional" really mean? Will the inspectors really have unfettered and instant access to every site they want?

That was frequently the problem during the fitful inspections between the 1991 Gulf War and late 1998, when the inspectors frequently voiced the suspicion that chemical and biological weapons facilities remained and that crucial equipment was removed from sites before their arrival.

Third, what becomes of the deadline the US wants to impose? This initial display of co-operation is bound to make some countries more inclined to give Saddam more time to prove his good faith.

A senior European Union official said: "The question now is whether the Americans will take 'yes' for an answer."

Russia said no new UN resolution was necessary as long as the inspectors went back to work.

Why, if the inspectors are allowed back, not give them the time to do their job properly? In any case, after an absence of four years, the UN teams will require time to assemble staff and draw up a list of known and suspected sites before organised inspections get under way.

And what if the inspectors, after a reasonable period, come up with nothing, or nothing that measures up to the dire warnings issuing from London and Washington?

The Americans are unlikely to be satisfied, buttressed by the old truism that it is impossible to prove a negative. As US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it, the "absence of evidence does not mean the evidence is absent".

Thus the game of poker will continue.

Saddam will calculate that he has done enough to weaken the US hand.

Washington, by contrast, will do its utmost to maintain the pressure, voicing scepticism at every turn, continuing the visible military buildup around Iraq, and doing its utmost to retain control of developments at the United Nations.

Bush will not be deflected. But yesterday the clean, quick progress towards a resolution of "the Iraq matter", once and for all, seemed a little less certain.

- INDEPENDENT, REUTERS

Further reading
Feature: War with Iraq

Iraq links and resources