US stance on Iraq: a UN compromise now likely

Mr. Blix has said he'd like to see an advance team of inspectors land in Baghdad in mid-October. He is expected to brief the Security Council Thursday in New York.

At the UN this week, Russia – who, with the US, Britain, France, and China comprise the permanent, veto-bearing members of the UN Security Council – is balking at any new resolutions.

The US insists that a new resolution is needed to reinvigorate Resolution 687, passed in 1991, and to supercede the weaker, compromise-oriented UN resolutions of 1998 and 1999. Resolution 687 called for the destruction of Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities, and for routine monitoring.

As Hussein grew more obstinate, the Council's political will weakened, partly by a desire to get back to doing business with Iraq, partly because much of the world grew concerned with the suffering of Iraqis under ongoing sanctions.

In 1996, the UN agreed to make certain "sensitive sites" off-limits to the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspectors. And in 1998, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan agreed to restrict access to eight so-called "presidential sites," reportedly covering some 30 square miles and 1,100 buildings.

Weapons inspectors were pulled out in December 1998 and followed by four days of joint American and British airstrikes.

One year later the Council, trying to re-start inspections, passed Resolution 1284 and replaced UNSCOM with the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), headed by Blix. Critics derided UNMOVIC as "UNSCOM lite" as 1284 now called only for Iraq's "cooperation" with inspectors.

Today, with Hussein's feet once again held to the fire, Iraq contends that Resolution 1284 and the agreements it signed with Annan more than suffice.

But the Bush administration – and some analysts – see it differently.

"Any decision to send inspectors back under the old rules is playing a chump's game and will ultimately end in war, because the US will walk away from it when it fails," says Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The only condition under which Saddam will comply is if he believes the only alternative is a war in which he would lose power – and probably his life."

But given the international opposition, it would be better for the US not get hung up on consequences in a new resolution, says Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Again, force was authorized long ago, he says. As Chapter VII states: "The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine."

"The most important thing is to be very explicit in the resolution about the obligations Iraq has to fulfill," says Mr. Clawson. "Then, the notion of compliance will be in the eye of the beholder."

Page: 1 | 2