Reporting on Iraq

The march to war continues relentlessly, and although it should be clear by now that Iraq has no meaningful stock of weapons of mass destruction and that the proposed war was never about such weapons the world's attention has this week been on the inspectors' reports to the UN, and the major antagonists response to those reports.

Like many people, I was surprised by the tone of Dr Hans Blix's report. The revelations that had been made over the preceding weeks had led me to expect a more positive report - perhaps not as glowing as that produced by the Nuclear inspectorate, but lacking the impatience and vague accusations that we were presented with. Blix's tone was especially surprising given the content of his report.

The inspector's report contains little that is new. A number of discrepancies between Iraqi reports and western intelligence are identified, primarily chemical or biological materials we supplied Iraq prior to 1991 that remain inadequately accounted for. These discrepancies were all known of in 1998, and most back in 1991. It is worth remembering that these discrepancies account for just 5% of the arsenal we were quite happy to provide to Hussein prior to his invasion of Kuwait. Also listed, as expected, are the small number of finds we knew about, and a number of minor obstructions we knew Iraq was guilty of. Indeed, the only new find was a "laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor." How significant this find is depends on what is meant by "laboratory quantity". Presumably, this is a small quantity, and therefore evidence of Iraq's desire for chemical weapons, not of an active programme to produce them.

In short the reports indicate that Iraq wants weapons of mass destruction, that there are a number of unanswered questions to examine, and that Iraqi co-operation is not perfect. Significantly, there is no evidence of either a current weapons programme, or of stock piled weapons. Yet, this is being used as justification for war. Think about it. Bush's reasoning amounts to "Iraq might have five percent of the weapons my Daddy allowed him. We can't prove they exist, so we must attack."

Although there is nothing in either report that even vaguely justifies aggression, there are areas that need to be addressed. While Iraqi Cupertino has so far been far better than expected, there is a need for improvement. American U2 spy planes should be deployed immediately, with a clear indication given to Iraq that any attack on these planes will be taken as an act of war. Iraqi scientists and other personnel must be interviewed in private. Provocation and harassment of the inspectors must cease. To an extent, however much Iraq co-operates more will be expected. Such is a small price to pay for peace.

The remaining unanswered questions will of course remain the focus of the inspections. However, we should understand that these are the very questions that have remained unanswered since 1991. They are the questions that are hardest to answer, the 5% left after all the easier work has been done. The west, especially America, expects all decisions to be documents, and those documents to emerge into the public gaze at some point in the future. This is how our democracies work. But Iraq is not a democracy. Decisions may not be documented, or those documents may be destroyed. Especially when, as in 1991, an invasion by a hostile foreign power looks likely. Some of the discrepancies are not small - 8,500 litres of anthrax, for instance. Even in a country the size of Iraq, that will not be easily hidden, and will need to be stored properly. So where is it? After seven years of inspections and eleven years of intelligence attempts to find it, perhaps we should draw the conclusion that the anthrax no longer exists. Our sole evidence to the contrary appears to be the word of one Iraqi defector, who has ample motive to lie in order to make himself appear more valuable to the west. Is it really such an unbelievable scenario that the Iraqis destroyed the anthrax, but cannot prove it to our satisfaction?

In the end, we have to accept that containment and inspection is an on-going process with no quick result. Satisfactory answers to some questions may never be found. Magical proof that Iraq has disarmed will not appear, and hard deadlines cannot be imposed. Instead, if we genuinely believe in peaceful solutions, we must keep faith in the inspection process that has proved so successful to date. If peace is not our goal, we have no business considering ourselves civilised.

Graham Robinson. 29th January 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.