BRITAIN: Britain set itself apart from the US yesterday when it said its main aim in Iraq was to get weapons inspectors back in. This differs from the US position where a "regime change" in Baghdad is the priority.
In comments that underlined differences between US President Bush and London, Foreign Secretary Mr Jack Straw said the main threat was from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's suspected capability with weapons of mass destruction.
"What everybody is concerned about . . . is particularly the threat that Saddam Hussein poses from both his capability and his record, to the security of the region and the security of the world," Mr Straw told BBC radio.
"The best way of trying to isolate and reduce that threat is by the introduction of weapons inspections," he said. "The crucial issue here is weapons inspectors." Mr Bush, by contrast, has made the ousting of President Saddam a top priority, saying the Iraqi leader is developing weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped before he can use them against the US and its allies, or share them with terrorist groups.
The British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, has signalled he would back US-led military action, but faces growing opposition from members of his own centre-left Labour Party, church leaders and, according to some reports, members of his own cabinet.
Challenged on whether there was any international coalition that would back military action against Iraq, Mr Straw ducked the question. "What there is, is an overwhelming international consensus against what Saddam Hussein has been doing and failing to do in Iraq." Mr Bush said on Wednesday that he would continue to consult with his allies on the issue of Iraq but again repeated his view that "regime change is in the interests of the world".
Mr Straw said Britain would, of course, be happy if President Saddam was removed, but stressed: "The key part of our approach is to get the weapons inspectors back.
"We have to say military action remains an option . . . because of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. But if there is another way of dealing with that threat, then plainly the case for military action recedes," he said.
Mr Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said Mr Straw's comments were evidence of a clear rift between the transatlantic allies.
"The Foreign Secretary's remarks place Britain in a quite different position from the hawks in the Bush administration," he said.
"The UK government should now be leading the charge to compel Saddam Hussein to readmit the UN inspectors with full, unfettered and open access to every installation they wish." But a spokesman for the Foreign Office said it was wrong to suggest the Foreign Secretary's comments showed a difference in approach.
"The US and other members of the [UN\] Security Council have called on numerous occasions for the reintroduction of weapons inspections in Iraq. And the US has made clear, like us, that no decision has been taken to launch military action," he said.
President Saddam has made various overtures to the UN in recent weeks about allowing teams of arms inspectors, who left four years ago, to return.
Last week, Iraq asked the UN for further technical talks in Baghdad before allowing inspectors back in, but so far there has been no formal UN response.
The weapons experts, who went into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, inspected and destroyed weapons before leaving in December 1998 on the eve of a US-British bombing raid.