Posted on 09/17/2002 6:30:21 AM PDT by MadIvan
The US and Britain returned to the brink of war today as Saddam Hussein's dramatic promise to allow unfettered weapons inspections turned out to have strings attached.
Iraq made a surprise offer late last night to provide "unconditional access" to United Nations inspectors, raising hopes of a peaceful outcome to the Gulf crisis.
But today it emerged that the offer only applied to military bases - which could let Saddam hide chemical and biological arms stockpiles elsewhere.
That was not good enough for Downing Street, which insisted: "Inspectors must be allowed to go anywhere, anytime."
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw urged the world to beware of being tricked by Iraq. "We have had games played by Saddam Hussein for the best part of 12 years," he said after meeting the Prime Minister.
"One thing I know for certain about him is he only responds to sustained pressure from the United Nations."
Iraq seemed to have succeeded in opening cracks in the fragile international coalition, however. Although the United States dismissed his offer as a ploy, France and Germany promptly questioned the need for a fresh UN resolution setting a deadline for Iraq to comply with existing rules.
Other countries, too, which have previously been reluctant to back a war against Saddam, seized the opportunity to claim the crisis was all but over. Fears are growing of a split in the 15-member UN security council which will study the offer today.
Amid confusion, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear inspections body, declared it was ready to recommence its work "tomorrow" if the UN agreed.
The disclosure that restrictions were, after all, attached to Saddam's offer was made by the London ambassador of the Arab League which brokered the deal in the first place.
Ali Muhsen Hamid claimed Iraq was being sincere, but he stipulated that civilian sites would not be available to the inspectors. "We support anywhere, any military site (for inspections), but not as some people have suggested for inspections against hospitals, against schools."
Hospitals are among key sites for inspections because of evidence that Saddam uses health laboratories to manufacture viruses for biological weapons.
An Arab League spokesman said only military sites were covered because it would take 10 years for inspectors to examine civilian buildings, which would divert the UN's attention from making Israel obey its resolutions. "If the US really wants to resolve this dispute it will welcome the offer," he added.
No10 pointed out that during the last, failed, round of inspections, the Iraqi president redesignated about half of his most secret military installations as " presidential palaces", ruling them out of bounds to inspectors.
Iraq capitalised on the disarray to mount a propaganda offensive. Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy prime minister, said the offer "thwarted" any reasons for a military attack. He added: "The aim of the American policies is the oil in the Gulf."
The Iraqi state news agency said Saddam may send a personal appeal to the UN within days.
Saddam made his offer in a letter presented to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan late last night after an emergency meeting of his security and diplomatic advisers.
Within minutes, the White House issued a statement scorning the promise as "a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong UN Security Council action".
"As such, it will fail," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions."
The concern in Washington is that support for military action will rapidly lose momentum. A State Department official described the offer as " a nightmare stalling technique".
Officials said planning for war would continue unchanged. But there was no longer any guarantee of a resolution ordering Iraq to disarm.
France was the first of the big five Security Council members to waver, suggesting that a new resolution be put on hold. And its top general flatly ruled out any preemptive strike against Saddam.
Armed forces chief General Jean-Pierre Kelche said an attack would bring chaos, adding: "We have to take him at his word."
This tells us everything we need to know about France - Ivan
Russia declared diplomacy had triumphed. Foreign minister Igor Ivanov said: "We have managed to deflect the threat of a military scenario and to steer the process back to a political channel."
A senior European Union official implied that the US was now out of line, saying: " The question now is whether the Americans will take 'yes' for an answer."
Under the 1991 Gulf war ceasefire terms, UN inspectors must verify the dismantling of Iraqi programmes for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and longrange missiles.
President Bush, whose stated policy is the ousting of Saddam, last week told the UN General Assembly that "action will be unavoidable" against Iraq unless the world body forced Baghdad to disarm.
Tony Blair had one consolation - a poll showing far greater support for military action in the wake of President Bush's speech.
Oh excellent, I'm glad the word is out there then. ;)
Regards, Ivan
Pacifism, no. But I will argue that 1.without clear proof of threat, an attack on Iraq will not be good for conservative interests internationally, and 2. if the proofs can be shown, taking out Saddam would be better than the full Operation Overlord scenario. Regards, By.
"The bombing begins in five minutes..."
Yes. That's the PM who brought in our gun laws, refused to challenge the Mabo decision, just okayed stem cell research on embryos, recently approved Australia's participation in the ICC, and has let down conservative principles almost every time he has been presented with a challenge. So I wouldn't take a lot of comfort from that, my dear Miss M. Instead, be suspicious, of his 'concern.' Regards, By.
Do you think Bob Lee Swagger would make a cruel joke like that, mate?
every single building in the country, or just the ones we care about? if it would take THAT long then we will be backed into a corner where we have no choice but to attack.
He has troops in the neighbouring Congo, Suzi; sent there, to protect the Zim politburo's illegal diamond mining. You can be assured they don't conduct themselves like gentlemanly guests. But the point is, the #1 terrorist will be in NYC next week, shopping for Cartier watches at Saks and being feted by black leaders in Harlem. And just like last time you won't hear a thing from the president or the US press. It goes to the heart of Mr Bush's credibility- and finds him wanting. We both know it would never have happened on Ronald Reagan's watch.
After all the articles that have been posted, after arguing you into the ground on this issue on things you cannot deny (that Saddam has used chemical weapons, that he is a sponsor of terrorism) and having pointed out things you don't know (for example, your blithe assertion that he has nothing to do with Al Qaeda - I repeat, you don't know that) you still persist in this nonsense that Saddam somehow needs to be preserved.
Now I will take this a step further. A climbdown on Bush's part, as you appear to be bleating for on every possible occasion, would be very damaging to the conservative movement in America and make the President look weak. Second, your taking out Saddam scenario only works if we can be sure what would replace him would be better than he - if you have been paying attention to the articles about Uday - that is by no means certain. Nor have you been able to deny that a detailed inspection would require a presence on the ground that only an occupation could assure.
But no, each and every time, you don't want to listen to any of this. Each and every time, you try to argue, unsuccessfully for pacifism. I submit that also, each and every time pacfism was tried in the face of a dictator like Saddam, it has been a miserable failure.
Fortunately, the President and Prime Ministers of Britain and Australia and Israel, don't particularly care what pacfists think.
Ivan
So, America is not doing the right thing about Mugabe. I agree. Mugabe should be dead, with his head on a spike at the Tower of London. That does not detract from the necessity of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Just because you don't think the order of battle is correct, does not mean that the battle should be thrown out altogether.
I'm very disappointed you'd try such a Clintonite tactic. What happened to you?
Ivan
You're right, robowombat. When French generals start parroting their gutless and clueless political leaders, you can hear the real military choking.
Yes. I keep on thinking if they would have volunteered to go join Hitler in the bunker in 1945.
Regards, Ivan
So far, the inspection deal is being treated with contempt by the USA, and even DASCHLE(!!!) has come out in support of the President and has made a statement that Hussein is not to be trusted. My democrat Senator Bayh is 100% behind the President.
I hope by the time I have returned things are even clearer. This nonsense with a meeting in Vienna in 10 days to make arrangements is (as is said here) horse hockey.
See you later!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.