-Caveat Lector-
What will be the trigger for war?
As inspectors begin checking Iraqi sites, peace hinges on the
interpretation of one phrase: 'material breach'
Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Wednesday November 27, 2002
The Guardian
UN weapons inspectors begin their work in Iraq today, launching a
tense new chapter in the confrontation with Saddam Hussein in which
war and peace are likely to hinge on the legal interpretation of two
words: material breach.
The UN teams refused to disclose the target of their first
inspection, but observers predicted it would be a suspected weapons
site visited by earlier inspections in the 1990s.
The White House put Baghdad on notice that it would be closely
scrutinised for its behaviour towards the inspectors, and that Mr
Bush would have zero tolerance for infractions.
One of the two chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix, has warned that
the burden of proof will be on Iraq, saying he would demand
convincing evidence in the form of documents or testimony from
officials, that weapons material that has not yet been accounted
for, has been destroyed.
A material breach, or substantial violation, of UN resolution 1441 -
which established the rules for inspections earlier this month -
would, according to the resolution, trigger serious consequences
for Saddam Hussein's regime. At a time when the US is massing its
forces in the Gulf, there is little doubt what those consequences
are likely to be.
Much will depend, then, on what the UN security council deems to be
a sufficiently serious violation to constitute such a breach. For
example, would a simple incident of deception be enough, or would it
require a pattern of behaviour?
US hawks want the concept of material breach to serve as a hair
trigger for action. The French and Russians want it as a safety
catch; but if they refuse to acknowledge any violation, no matter
how egregious, as a material breach, the US and Britain say they
will go to war without UN blessing.
But there are conflicting views not only among Washington, London,
Paris, Moscow and Beijing, but also within the British and US
governments. The threshold for launching a war put forward by Tony
Blair on Monday was radically different from the one proposed by the
foreign secretary, Jack Straw. The differences within the Bush
administration are at least as serious.
There has already been a row over the issue, days before the
inspectors set foot in Iraq. The US claimed that Iraqi anti-aircraft
fire against American and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones
over the country constituted a hostile act against personnel from
a UN member state, under paragraph 8 of the resolution.
However, every other security council member, including Britain,
insisted that this clause was intended to refer only to Iraqi
behaviour towards the inspection teams. Washington opted not to take
its complaint to the council, knowing it would be voted down, but it
may well bring the incident up later if it seeks to prove a pattern
of non-compliance.
The high-stakes debate is likely to get progressively more heated as
the consensus behind Resolution 1441 is tested by events in Iraq,
starting with Baghdad's declaration of its biological, chemical and
nuclear weapons, due on December 8.
Here are six possible scenarios and an analysis of whether they
could lead to war:
· On December 8, Iraq admits it has weapons of mass destruction and
gives full details to the inspectors
This would not constitute a material breach, but rather the
best-case scenario for inspections, paving the way for full
disarmament. It is generally seen as over-optimistic.
· On December 8, Iraq denies that it has weapons of mass destruction
In such a case, Baghdad could simply send in a short note of denial
- or, more likely, a long list of non-military factories and
laboratories, and invite inspections of the sites.
In that case, the US and Britain will denounce the declaration as a
lie, because both countries claim to have intelligence that Iraq has
substantial weapons programmes.
However, it is far from clear that the declaration would represent a
material breach.
Paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 states that false statements or
omissions in the declaration and failure to cooperate with the
inspectors would constitute a material breach.
The use of and rather than or was intensively debated by the
security council, and was a condition for its unanimous support for
the resolution.
Despite hints to the contrary from Tony Blair, British government
officials say the declaration alone will not provide a justification
for military action. The US state department privately agrees.
However, the White House is keeping its options open. A spokesman,
Sean McCormack, said yesterday that any omission or deception in
the declaration would be a material breach.
Hawks in the Pentagon and US vice president's office have warned the
president that the December 8 declaration may be the best
opportunity to
