Britain’s press on Wednesday joined the British government in responding with scepticism to Baghdad’s surprise offer to unconditionally readmit arms inspectors.
Iraq’s pledge ”merits extreme scepticism”, said The Times ? a right-of-centre publication.
”The UN has to remind (Iraqi leader) Saddam (Hussein) that he is in last chance saloon.”
The paper added that Saddam’s offer must be ”met by a new, explicit (UN) resolution which makes it clear when the inspectors will return to Iraq, the completely unlimited nature of their remit and the immediate, severe consequences which would follow if their activities were, yet again, impeded.
”Any other scenario would allow the Iraqi dictator to engage in his favoured pastime — playing for time.”
Iraq gave its pledge to readmit UN weapons inspectors in a letter presented on Monday to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.
The left-of-centre Guardian called the offer ”heartening” but added that ”large dollops of scepticism are in order”.
The right-wing Daily Telegraph said the pledge was ”almost certainly a ruse”.
”Saddam will not voluntarily give up his weapons of mass destruction, because without the threat they embody, his regime would be fatally weakened,” it said.
The Daily Mail said it was ”under no illusions about Saddam’s murderous intent or the threat he poses, if allowed the opportunity.
”Scepticism, caution and, indeed, downright disbelief are the only sensible responses to his ploy.”
The press’ scepticism echoed that of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw — who on Tuesday said a new UN resolution was still needed.
”We shall continue to work with our international partners for an effective resolution before the Security Council”, Straw said in a statement.
He added: ”This letter and apparent offer is bound to be treated with a high degree of scepticism by the international community.”
A Downing Street representative said Saddam had a history of ”playing games” and warned that weapons inspectors must have unrestricted access to all areas ”any time, any place, anywhere”.
”We will wait to see what’s on the table”, she added.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is the European leader who most strongly backs US President George Bush’s hard line on Iraq, although his government has put more emphasis on reviving UN arms inspections than on Saddam’s ouster.
Meanwhile, former UN chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter says he believes Hussein agreed to let inspectors into Iraq because the only other option was the country’s destruction.
”If he doesn’t let weapons inspectors back in, he dies,” Ritter said in an interview on Tuesday. ”There’s not going to be a second chance.”
Speaking later on Tuesday at Georgia State University, Ritter said he did not think inspectors would find weapons of mass destruction, although they may encounter Iraqi obstruction. If they do, he said, the international community should hold Saddam accountable.
Ritter has been critical of President Bush’s policy of ousting Saddam. The international community should focus on
disarmament, not on a regime change, he said.
”We have allowed ourselves as a people to be cowed into submission by our government,” said Ritter, a former Marine. ”No connection has been made between Iraq and al-Qaida that has been backed up by anything more than rhetoric.”
Since arms inspectors went to Iraq in 1991, Saddam has
alternated between pledging greater access and frustrating their work. The inspectors left Iraq in 1998 and have not been allowed back.
Before guaranteeing unlimited access to inspectors on Monday, Saddam had said he would let inspectors back in only for a limited time and only if the UN Security Council lifted the sanctions.
Ritter maintains any arsenal Iraq might have isn’t a threat and that Saddam doesn’t have the ability to make nuclear weapons. But many are skeptical of Ritter’s contention that UN inspections eliminated 95% of Iraq’s deadly weaponry by 1998.
After serving as a UN weapons inspector for seven years, Ritter resigned in 1998, saying Iraq remained ”an ugly threat” and the administration of former President Bill Clinton was doing too little about it. He also said he felt the United States was manipulating the inspections effort for political purposes.
”This is about politics, and it will always be about politics until President Bush backs up his call for war with substantive facts,” Ritter said on Tuesday. ”It’s not that I’m anti-Bush – we need to debate this issue before we go to war.” – Sapa-AFP, AP