Thanks to Rick McDowell for sharing this.

Phyllis Bennis: Talking Points UN Inspectors Report

To: Foreign Policy Staffers

Re: Talking Points UN Inspectors Report

IPS Fellow Phyllis Bennis has just returned from the United Nations where
the chief inspectors released their report. She offers the following
analysis on today's events:

*The UN inspectors report to the UN Security Council today showed the
effect of U.S. pressure, but it fell short of assigning Iraq a clear
failing grade, thus denying the Bush administration their sought-after
justification for war.

* Both UN inspectors' reports to the Security Council indicated that more
time was necessary to complete the inspection process, the IAEA explicitly
requesting at least 2 months, and UNMOVIC implying that more time was
needed in its references to areas where it is following up on "open"
issues. The reports were upbeat on the nuclear front, and ambiguous,
cautious and less positive on the chemical and biological weapons side.

* France and Germany maintained their earlier positions that "so far the
inspections are going on without difficulties. They have already produced
some results, but there are still question marks." They called on Iraq to
improve its "proactive" cooperation, while saying that to fulfill the terms
of 1441, inspections should be given "enough" time. The German ambassador
said Iraq "should be disarmed completely and by peaceful means." But when
asked about specific positions regarding new timelines or deadlines, they
refused to answer. There is a danger that U.S. pressure on either (or
both) France and/or Germany could result in a back-room deal in which "old
Europe's" opposition to war caves in.

* The inspectors' reports did not give any indication they had found actual
evidence of a functioning program to produce prohibited weapons in Iraq.
The specific violations they mentioned are generally not absolute, and
certainly do not provide actual evidence of Iraqi efforts to rebuild
prohibited weapons programs.

* The demand for improving Iraq's "pro-active" cooperation reflected a
consistent U.S. claim that Iraq is cooperating only grudgingly. Bush
administration officials repeated their comparison with South Africa's
voluntary project of ending its nuclear weapons program, which they claim
was quick and easy because South Africa, unlike Iraq, was eager to disarm
and welcomed international inspections to verify its progress. In fact,
South Africa's Ambassador Kumalo Dumisani told the Council that the
inspections need much more time. South Africa's successful disarmament, he
reminded the Council, took two years.

* Iraqi officials have publicly urged scientists to cooperate with the UN
inspectors, including to accept private interviews without Iraqi officials
present. So far no scientists have agreed; the inspectors themselves have
said they will not become a "defection agency" and will not "kidnap" Iraqis
against their will. This remains to be resolved and Iraq has said they are
working on it.

* Iraq has refused to accept U.S.-piloted U2 surveillance planes to fly
over Iraq to assist the inspectors. Iraqi officials indicate that the
reason is that because of the U.S.-British patrols over the illegal
"no-fly" zones, and the U.S. bombing of those zones and beyond, they cannot
guarantee the safety of the surveillance planes. Negotiations on this point
are under way.

* Iraq is allowed to have and test short-range missiles with a range of
less than 90 miles. In one set of tests Iraq attempted a 110-mile flight.
This is technically a violation and Iraq has given the inspectors new
guarantees that it will not be repeated. However, it is clearly not an
indication of a serious Iraqi military build-up.

* Remaining unanswered questions include some left over from earlier
inspection regimes. Blix said specifically that Iraq "should" have
additional documentation, keeping the burden on Baghdad. Primarily they
include areas where Iraq says that relevant material (chemical or
biological) was destroyed or lost but that there is no existing records
documenting the destruction. In such case, the only way to resolve the
impasse is to shift the "Iraq has the burden" position, and for the U.S.
(or anyone else accusing Iraq of hiding information) to come forward with
evidence that the Iraqi claims are not true.

* The delay in Council decision-making gives additional time-likely at
least a month to six weeks-to mobilize even broader anti-war forces.
Keeping France and Germany on the no-war side will require strengthening
the global and U.S. anti-war movements. We must maintain unrelenting
pressure on the basis of "the world says 'NO' to war."

Page created January 28, 2003 by Charlie Jenks.