The United States administration yesterday engaged largely in sabre-rattling in New York when it delivered its preliminary verdict on Iraq's 12,000-page arms report and declared Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations. In terms of international law, one statement to the UN Security Council, and one alone, mattered.
The Council was informed by Dr Hans Blix, executive chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), that "there has been prompt access to sites all over and there has been a good deal of help on the logistical side."
For the rest, and particularly the US's assessment of the Iraqi report, it was just that, "preliminary", ahead of Dr Blix's final, considered assessment on January 27th.
It certainly appears, however, that the Iraqis have been less than totally forthcoming in their paperwork. The arms inspectors, who were in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 before resuming searches last month, have a list of specific questions which remain largely unanswered. These relate to Iraq's inability to account for either the whereabouts of, or produce evidence of the destruction of, significant quantities of chemical/biological weapons known to be in their possession. Specifically, among other lacunae, some 550 mustard-gas shells; 500 aerial bombs that were filled with either anthrax or other biological agents; 200 tons of chemicals for the nerve agent VX; and some warheads with traces of VX.
But such deficiencies in the reporting, although serious, are insufficient to justify war when Dr Blix's inspectors are apparently being given free access to sites. Moreover, determining a "material breach" is a matter for the Security Council itself, as Resolution 1441 makes explicit. Unanimously the Council decided "that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment ..."
Iraq remains the master of its fate. It may take comfort from the evidence of European and other unease at the prospect of a US-led assault. But it should not. The obligations on it are absolute and the Security Council has unanimously warned "it will face serious consequences" for continued non-compliance. Baghdad must heed the warning.