
The UN inspectors8217; report to the Security Council, if anything, only lends support to the position adopted by France, Germany, Russia and China. The International Atomic Energy Agency has categorically reaffirmed that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme and that the aluminium tubes it imported are not meant for enrichment of uranium to make nuclear bombs. Iraq8217;s 150-km range Al-Samoud-2 ballistic missiles, originally permitted by UN but which technically may exceed the specified range, are being destroyed. Chief UN inspector, Hans Blix, has also clearly told the Security Council that Iraq has been co-operating and given some months 8212; not weeks, or years 8212; of further strengthened inspections, Iraq would be rid of any doubt about chemical and biological weapons. While Iraq was expected to comply with UN resolutions and some aspects of its WMD policies remain unexplained, there is little evidence to justify recourse to war.
On the one hand, the position of France, Germany, and Russia, inevitably, has stiffened by these conclusions. The US position, on the other hand, has also hardened with President George Bush declaring that Saddam Hussein8217;s Iraq poses a direct threat to the USA, and hence he must use force to remove that threat. Disarmament continues to be the mantra, but 8220;regime change8221; for total disarmament remains the central US goal. But larger issues no doubt drive immediate policy choices. Historically, it has always been extremely difficult for great powers to reverse a policy of the use of force once it crosses the Rubicon of publicly demonstrated use or threat of use of such force; and the US crossed that some weeks ago.