US cranks up the pressure on UN

WASHINGTON - The United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has warned that the US will find ways to stop weapons inspectors returning to Iraq unless there is a new - and much tougher - United Nations Security Council resolution on the issue.

Powell told a congressional committee that the Security Council had to spell out to Iraq the serious consequences of failing to co-operate with the inspectors.

The US and Britain are trying to convince the council's three other veto-wielding members - Russia, China and France - to accept a resolution to narrow the timetable for Iraqi compliance with weapons inspections and authorise force if Baghdad fails to co-operate.

The development came as the chief United Nations arms inspector, Hans Blix, told the Security Council he hoped to have an advance party in Iraq on October 15.

Blix said an advance party would go there as soon as possible.

"We will select some sites that we think are interesting to go to in the early phases so it's not like it takes two months before we can send any guys out there in the field. It will be much earlier than that."

At the UN, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri delivered a message from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein accusing Washington of lying about Iraq's weapons.

Saddam insisted that Baghdad did not possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

He accused President George W. Bush and his Administration of putting out "lies, distortions, and falsehoods" about Iraq, as a pretext for an attack, and whose true aim was to gain control of Middle Eastern oil.

"I hereby declare before you that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons," Saddam said.

The tirade, applauded by some diplomats at the UN, drew a predictably withering response from the White House, where officials described the claim that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction as a fairytale.

The speech presented nothing new, said Ari Fleischer, Bush's spokesman.

More ominously, the Iraqi leader hinted that the return of the UN weapons inspectors might not be quite as "unconditional" as it seemed.

Not only should weapons inspections be part of a comprehensive solution to the crisis, including the lifting of UN sanctions; they should also "respect arrangements" on Iraq's sovereignty and security - a possible veiled warning that some of Saddam's palaces and other suspect sites could be off limits.

Even before Sabri spoke, however, Bush rejected all such terms and left no doubt that Washington was ready to take military action alone or with the support of a few allies such as Britain, whatever emerged from the Security Council.

"There are no negotiations to be held with Iraq," he said at the start of an Oval Office meeting with Powell to review the progress of US efforts.

"They [the Iraqis] have nothing to negotiate. They say they don't have weapons of mass destruction. It's up to the United Nations Security Council to lay out resolutions to confirm what Iraq has already agreed to."

Earlier, Bush sent a draft resolution to Congress, asking it to authorise all necessary and appropriate means to ensure Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions and to restore peace and security to the region.

Bush also urged the UN Security Council to deal with Iraq - or the US and its allies would, he said.

Bush said negotiations with the Iraqis were over.

As part of his lobbying effort, Bush met nine Democratic and Republican members of Congress yesterday.

In another development, the White House expressed outrage that Germany's Justice Minister compared Bush's stance on Iraq to the tactics used by Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. The minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, apologised, saying her remarks had been misrepresented.

And in Australia, Prime Minister John Howard backed the US and British efforts at the Security Council.

"You can only achieve a durable non-military outcome if any testing of Iraq's bona fides is against a background of a new enforceable, effective resolution," he said.

Howard is a resolute supporter of Bush's hardline position against Iraq and has left open the option of contributing troops if Washington makes its own military strike against Baghdad.

A US newspaper reported that military planners see February as the best time to start a war against Iraq.

The Washington Times said the strategy would depend greatly on defecting Iraqi troops to help topple Saddam.

The newspaper quoted two defence sources as saying February would be the most likely time to strike and that hostilities would probably be over by April, before the oppressive heat of the Persian Gulf spring and summer sets in.

According to the newspaper, the planners see a military build-up being completed in a matter of weeks.

- INDEPENDENT, AGENCIES

Further reading
Feature: War with Iraq

Iraq links and resources