|
The United States declared on Thursday that Iraq is in "another material breach" of United Nations (UN) resolutions by submitting a report which "totally fails" to meet the requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on its disarmament.
The US assessment of the 12,000-page Iraqi dossier submitted on December 7 was in sharp contrast to a preliminary report given by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed El Baradei on the same day to the UN Security Council.
In the first formal US response to the Iraqi report about its weapons of mass destruction programmes, Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters that the report is only "a catalogue of recycled information and flagrant omissions" which constitutes "another material breach" of UN resolutions.
Blix, chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, admitted there is "little new information" in the Iraqi report, but he noted that the UN inspectors can neither support nor deny Baghdad's claim that it has no weapons of mass destruction, and will further examine the report.
While Powell accused Iraq of continuing to play games, Blix praised the Iraqi Government for its cooperation with the United Nations since inspections resumed in Iraq on November 27. The gap between the two evaluations of the Iraq report is obvious: While the United States declared Iraq in "material breach" of UN resolutions, UN inspectors have yet to come to the same conclusion.
The key word here is "material breach," which is regarded to be the most serious form of violation of UN resolutions. Resolution 1441 adopted on November 8 says that "false statements or omissions in the declarations... and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully, in the implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material breach."
If Iraq was in "material breach" of the resolution, it would face "serious consequences," a diplomatic term which Washington interprets as the automatic authorization of the use of force.
Britain, a close ally of the United States, has accepted that interpretation, which was fundamental in their bid to overcome France's opposition to the US-drafted resolution.
In France's view, the clause means that missing data and less than candid statements in an Iraqi declaration about its weapons are not enough to cause a "material breach" if there is no other pattern of defiance by Baghdad.
Announcing Iraq in "another material breach" of UN resolutions on Thursday, Powell, widely believed to be the sole dove in the Bush administration, issued a stern warning to Baghdad.
"On the basis of this declaration, on the basis of the evidence before us, our path for the coming weeks is clear," Powell said. "Iraq's noncompliance and defiance of the international community" has brought it closer to the day when it will have to face serious consequences, he added.
But notably, Powell stressed that the US rejection of Iraq's declaration about its weapons of mass destruction programme is not "an immediate trigger" for war.
This may sound paradoxical. But analysts believe that denouncing Iraq in violation of UN resolutions while stopping short of immediate military action is a carefully calculated US response to the Iraqi declaration.
According to US officials, denouncing the Iraqi weapons statement as the most serious of form of breach at this stage will help build up a case against Baghdad in the coming weeks because the Bush administration has set the last week of January as a make-or-break point in its long stand off with Iraq.
Although the Bush administration has so far refrained from interpreting the "breach" as a sufficient pretext for military action, that characterization could be a useful one in case of a showdown with Baghdad.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration would use the characterization - "material breach" - to step up pressure on the United Nations to demand interviews with Iraqi scientists or technicians outside Iraq, one US official was quoted as saying by US media.
Even if Saddam does not resist such interviews, the United States could well use them to dig up evidence against Baghdad or collect information for military strikes in case of a war, analysts say.
(Xinhua News Agency December 25, 2002)
|
