A UN Security Council resolution on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, approved unanimously on Friday, ignores a warning from its head weapon inspector that Iraq may not be able to comply with a key condition.
This could potentially mean that the 鈥渟erious consequences鈥� threatened by the resolution for any Iraqi violation could be enacted before weapons inspectors even begin their full assessment.
The 鈥渟erious consequences鈥� have been widely interpreted as meaning a US-led military campaign, and under the resolution would require no further permission from the Security Council.
Advertisement
At issue is the 30 days the resolution gives Iraq to make 鈥渁 currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes鈥� to develop prohibited weapons, as well as 鈥渁ll other chemical, biological and nuclear programmes 鈥� which it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production鈥�.
This requires the declaration of all 鈥渄ual-use鈥� facilities, i.e. those which have legitimate uses, but which employ equipment that could be used for making weapons, such as petrochemical plants.
Compare and contrast
Hans Blix, head of the UN Monitoring, Inspection and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC), told the Security Council last week that 鈥渁 declaration regarding weapons programmes should be possible within 30 days鈥�, as should the details of any peaceful nuclear programmes.
But, he warned, 鈥渢o declare all other chemical programmes in a country with a fairly large chemical industry, as well as other biological programmes, might be more problematic in a short time鈥�. Nonetheless, the Security Council has demanded a declaration in 30 days.
The inspectors will initially compare this declaration with other sources of information, including material gathered by the last weapons inspectors, who left in 1998, and briefings from national intelligence services.
If the inspectors find any 鈥渇alse statements or omissions鈥� at the outset, that could be construed as a trigger for 鈥渟erious consequences鈥�. In that case, the inspectors will never get the chance to investigate Iraq鈥檚 presumed weapons in detail.
Omission or obstruction
Moreover, the resolution does not spell out how much obstruction of the inspectors, should they get to Iraq, warrants the 鈥渟erious consequences鈥�.
But Blix will not decide what kind of omission or obstruction warrants what kind of response.
He told the Security Council that: 鈥淚 will not agree with an interpretation suggesting that we [the inspectors] have peace and war in our hands. We report. It is the Security Council and its Members who decide.鈥�