UK sets 'tests' for Saddam

By GREG ANSLEY AND AGENCIES

Britain has made a last-ditch push to win support for a new United Nations Security Council resolution that would set out a map for Iraqi disarmament.

But its suggestion that Iraq be given six tests that it must meet to avoid US-led military action found no favour with France or Russia.

The proposal also received only lukewarm support from the United States, which has made clear that it is growing frustrated with the drawn-out diplomatic process.

The British move came as Australian Prime Minister John Howard told his nation that its jet fighters, SAS troops and warships were ready for combat.

With Britain, Australia is one of the strongest backers of the US stance on Iraq.

In a televised address laying out his case for Australia going to war, Mr Howard acknowledged that his position had attracted criticism.

But he declared "unapologetically" that Australia's alliance with the US was a factor in his Government's uncompromising stand.

Mr Howard's case focused on Australia's national interest in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the war against terrorism, and the weight Canberra gave to its strong links with the US.

"Not only is it inherently dangerous to allow a country such as Iraq to retain such weapons, particularly in the light of its past aggressive behaviour, but the failure of the world community to disarm Iraq will encourage other rogue states to do likewise, safe in the knowledge that the world will do nothing to stop them," he said.

"As the possession of weapons of mass destruction spreads, so the danger of such weapons coming into the hands of terrorist groups multiplies.

"That is the ultimate nightmare ... Possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by terrorists would constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people."

Mr Howard dismissed the argument, put forward by New Zealand and other opponents of war in the Gulf without UN approval, that more weapons inspectors should be given more time to disarm Iraq.

He said the UN weapons inspectors would not even have been in Iraq - let alone squeezing out "a few morsels of compliance" - had it not been for the American military buildup in the Gulf.

If a new US-backed resolution failed in the Security Council, opponents of war would expect the US, Britain and Australia to keep forces in the region to maintain pressure on Iraq, which was unrealistic.

"They know, as we all do, that a withdrawal of those forces would immediately destroy any prospect of any further co-operation by Iraq," Mr Howard said.

At the United Nations, Britain - with only provisional US backing - circulated to Security Council members the six tests that it wanted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to fulfil to avoid war.

They included requiring Saddam to address his nation on television and confess he had tried to hide weapons of mass destruction but had decided to give them up.

Britain's UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said the six undecided Security Council members - Chile, Pakistan, Mexico, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon - had greeted the proposals warmly.

But France and Russia, which have veto power in the Security Council, and Germany viewed Britain's last-ditch effort to save the resolution with scepticism.

US Ambassador John Negroponte said Washington was "commending" the proposal to the Security Council.

But he emphasised repeatedly that the US-British-Spanish resolution giving Saddam a March 17 ultimatum was the only formal resolution before the council.

He said Washington could accept a "very, very modest extension" of the March 17 deadline. Diplomats said this could be March 21, or possibly March 24.

Earlier, a senior US official said the US had had positive responses from Angola, Cameroon and Guinea.

But another US official said the Guinean president seemed to have changed his mind.

If confirmed, that would bring support for the war resolution in the 15-member Security Council to seven, two short of the nine votes needed for passage.

A veto from France, Russia or China, all of which oppose the resolution, would still kill it.

In another sign of the intense diplomatic pressure Washington was bringing to bear, the US ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, warned Moscow to think twice and "carefully weigh all the consequences" before using its UN veto.

SEE ALSO