UN weapons inspectors begin their work in Iraq today, launching a tense new chapter in the confrontation with Saddam Hussein in which war and peace are likely to hinge on the legal interpretation of two words: ”material breach”.
The UN teams refused to disclose the target of their first inspection, but observers predicted it would be a suspected weapons site visited by earlier inspections in the 1990s.
The White House put Baghdad on notice that it would be closely scrutinised for its behaviour towards the inspectors, and that Bush would have ”zero tolerance” for infractions.
One of the two chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix, has warned that the burden of proof will be on Iraq, saying he would demand ”convincing evidence” in the form of documents or testimony from officials, that weapons material that has not yet been accounted for, has been destroyed.
A material breach, or substantial violation, of UN resolution 1441 — which established the rules for inspections earlier this month — would, according to the resolution, trigger ”serious consequences” for Saddam Hussein’s regime. At a time when the US is massing its forces in the Gulf, there is little doubt what those consequences are likely to be.
Much will depend, then, on what the UN security council deems to be a sufficiently serious violation to constitute such a breach. For example, would a simple incident of deception be enough, or would it require a pattern of behaviour?
US hawks want the concept of material breach to serve as a ”hair trigger” for action. The French and Russians want it as a safety catch; but if they refuse to acknowledge any violation, no matter how egregious, as a material breach, the US and Britain say they will go to war without UN blessing.
But there are conflicting views not only among Washington, London, Paris, Moscow and Beijing, but also within the British and US governments. The threshold for launching a war put forward by Tony Blair on Monday was radically different from the one proposed by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. The differences within the Bush administration are at least as serious.
There has already been a row over the issue, days before the inspectors set foot in Iraq. The US claimed that Iraqi anti-aircraft fire against American and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones over the coun try constituted a ”hostile act” against personnel from a UN member state, under paragraph 8 of the resolution.
However, every other security council member, including Britain, insisted that this clause was intended to refer only to Iraqi behaviour towards the inspection teams. Washington opted not to take its complaint to the council, knowing it would be voted down, but it may well bring the incident up later if it seeks to prove a pattern of non-compliance.
The high-stakes debate is likely to get progressively more heated as the consensus behind Resolution 1441 is tested by events in Iraq, starting with Baghdad’s declaration of its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, due on December 8.
Here are six possible scenarios and an analysis of whether they could lead to war:
On December 8, Iraq admits it has weapons of mass destruction and gives full details to the inspectors
This would not constitute a material breach, but rather the best-case scenario for inspections, paving the way for full disarmament. It is generally seen as over-optimistic.
On December 8, Iraq denies that it has weapons of mass destruction
In such a case, Baghdad could simply send in a short note of denial — or, more likely, a long list of non-military factories and laboratories, and invite inspections of the sites.
In that case, the US and Britain will denounce the declaration as a lie, because both countries claim to have intelligence that Iraq has substantial weapons programmes.
However, it is far from clear that the declaration would represent a material breach.
Paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 states that ”false statements or omissions” in the declaration and failure to cooperate with the inspectors would constitute a material breach.
The use of ”and” rather than ”or” was intensively debated by the security council, and was a condition for its unanimous support for the resolution.
Despite hints to the contrary from Tony Blair, British government officials say the declaration alone will not provide a justification for military action. The US state department privately agrees. However, the White House is keeping its options open. A spokesman, Sean McCormack, said yesterday that ”any omission or deception in the declaration would be a material breach”.
Hawks in the Pentagon and US vice president’s office have warned the president that the December 8 declaration may be the best opportunity to catch Saddam in a violation. The inspectors, they say, may not be able to find anything.
UN inspectors find evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
The consequences of this would depend on how strong the evidence is. If there is any ambiguity at all, France and Russia are likely to resist calls to declare a material breach.
The British say they are willing to return with fresh evidence again and again to make their case. The US may be less patient, as it would rather go to war during the winter months.
Iraqi officials try to obstruct weapons inspections
Again, it would be a question of degree. A single instance of a delay in opening up a suspected site is unlikely to spark a war.
A pattern of delays or outright refusal to provide access to a site or an official, however, would be more serious. The US would press the security council hard. Other member states would find it increasingly difficult to veto declarations of a material breach without provoking a US-British walkout.
Much will depend on how Iraqi behaviour is described by both Blix and Mohammed el-Baradei, his chief weapons inspector.
Iraq is caught red-handed in a deception
Earlier inspectors sometimes found that when they arrived at a suspect site, material left by the back door. On at least one occasion, the ruse was captured on film by an American spy plane. A similar incident now would be likely to set off a war.
The Iraqis cooperate and the inspectors find nothing
Many former inspectors believe this the most likely scenario. They say Iraq has had plenty of time to hide any incriminating evidence, perhaps burying it deep in the desert.
In that case, the US and Britain will face a serious dilemma which is likely to drive a wedge between them. Britain would be content to maintain increasingly aggressive inspections. The US would be more likely to demand action. – Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001