IRAQ: The day after tomorrow is Iraq's first deadline in the process of getting UN arms inspectors back into the country. Deaglán de Bréadún and Patrick Smyth ask (and answer) some of the questions surrounding the crisis
Q. Does the unanimous rejection of the UN resolution by the Iraqi parliament make war inevitable?
A. No. As in all dictatorships, the final decision rests with the person on top, in this case Saddam Hussein. Even the parliament said the "political leadership" should "authorise President Saddam Hussein to adopt what he sees as appropriate". The fact that Saddam's elder son Uday urged the parliament to accept the resolution may be an indication of how Daddy's mind is working.
Q. So we're at the mercy of Saddam then?
A. Better to say, Saddam is at the mercy of himself. Iraq has until Friday to accept or reject the resolution the UN Security Council approved unanimously at the end of last week. If it does not, or fails to adhere subsequently to the tough conditions in the resolution, the US and Britain have indicated they will attack Iraq. But it would not be surprising if Saddam kept us waiting until the last minute this week.
Q. Why is the Security Council so important?
A. When the United Nations was set up in 1945 "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", the Security Council was given primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. It has the power to take decisions, including authorising the use of force as a last resort on behalf of the general membership and these decisions have to be accepted and implemented by all member-states.
The five major powers at the end of the second World War were given permanent seats and a veto on the council: China, France, Russia, the UK and the US. Ten other members are elected for a two-year term: Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore and Syria. The Iraq resolution needed nine votes to pass, with none of the veto-holding powers voting against.
In the event, everyone said Yes including, to many people's surprise, the Syrians.
Q. So why did Syria come on side?
A. Reports say France advised that a Yes vote would help Syria break out of its political and economic isolation. In addition, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the Syrians rather pointedly that a unanimous vote would "serve to avoid a future military confrontation". There were said to be fears in Damascus that if Saddam were toppled, Syria could be next.
When Yemen voted against the previous Gulf War, the US responded by cutting off aid, making it the "the most expensive No in history". Syria also relies on UN Security Council resolutions in its diplomatic campaign to force Israel to return the Golan Heights and other land seized in the 1967 Six-Day War. Besides, the revised text of the resolution appears to place restraints on unilateral US action against Iraq.
Q. What are the main demands the Security Council is making on Iraq?
A. The resolution requires Baghdad to co-operate fully with UN weapons inspectors and warns of "serious consequences" if it fails to co-operate. It gives Iraq until November 15th to notify the UN of its readiness to comply and 30 days to disclose details of its weapons capabilities.
Q. How was the resolution modified or diluted in negotiations?
A. The US and the UK prepared a text which called on Iraq to allow free and unfettered access by UN inspectors to sites where weapons of mass destruction might be assembled or stored. It was also seen as giving automatic authorisation for the use of military force if Iraq failed to comply.
France and Russia, with support from elected members such as Mexico and Ireland and reflecting the views of most UN member-states, opposed giving implicit approval to military action without further consideration by the council. France initially wanted military force to be conditional on a second resolution by the council: in the end a compromise was reached on a "two-stage" process.
Now the matter will come back to the council, to assess whether the Iraqis are guilty of a "material breach" of the resolution. Interpretations differ on whether the US is entitled to take unilateral action if it sees fit.
Some would say previous resolutions provide the required authorisation, but while the legalities may be obscure, in political terms the US would likely prefer to act with the full backing of the international community.
Q. But isn't the US determined to go ahead with "regime-change" in Iraq, no matter what the UN thinks?
A. This might have been the case two months ago and there are still elements in the US administration which would be inclined that way. But if the UN inspectors were to report full Iraqi compliance with the resolution, war might still be averted. Otherwise the hawks will have their way.
Q. What is the timetable for implementing the UN resolution?
A. 1) Iraq has until Friday to accept the terms and promise to comply;
2) Iraq has until December 8th to provide weapons inspectors and the Security Council with a complete declaration of its chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities;
3) Weapons inspectors have until December 23rd to resume their work in Iraq. The chief UN weapons inspector, Mr Hans Blix plans to have an advance team on the ground by November 18th;
4) Weapons inspectors report to the Security Council 60 days after they begin their work. If inspections resume on December 23rd, they would have to report by February 21st next year;
5) Any Iraqi interference with their work, any failure by Iraq to comply with disarmament obligations and any false statements or omissions in its declaration are to be reported immediately by the inspectors. The Security Council will convene immediately to consider the situation.
Q. Is it all really about oil?
A. It's certainly an important consideration. Some sceptics of US intentions insist that the US knows full well that Saddam Hussein can be contained militarily and that the real reason for going after him is to control Iraq's huge oil reserves.
Their argument goes as follows: unwilling to tackle profligate US oil consumption, the Bush administration has become perilously dependant on strategically vulnerable foreign oil supplies. The administration's National Energy Policy Report (May 2001), known as "the Cheney report" after its main author, the Vice-President Mr Dick Cheney, recommended giving priority to securing those supplies, the majority of which come from politically vulnerable Saudi Arabia.
Only one country has the capacity substantially to increase oil production in the event of a Saudi collapse: Iraq, with its proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of oil (compared with 49 billion for Russia and 15 billion for the Caspian states).
What makes the Iraq fields yet more interesting is that unlike Saudi Arabia, Iraq is believed to harbour the world's last massive undiscovered supply and Saddam has already awarded contracts for fields totalling up to 44 billion gallons to major EU, Russian and Chinese firms.
The Iraqi National Congress, a dissident group backed by the US, says it will review all such contracts when it comes to power and US companies and those from "friendly" countries could expect to be the beneficiaries of such a review.
The Bush administration is the most closely associated with the oil industry in US history - the president, vice-president, national security adviser, two cabinet secretaries and at least six top administration officials came from the ranks of the energy industry (not to mention an energy secretary and chief of staff linked to the car industry).
On top of that, oil and gas industry executives gave more than $20 million to Bush and other Republicans last year (four times what they gave to Democrats).
On the other hand, Saddam does have a track record of building (and using) weapons of mass destruction (not least against his own people); he did his best to hide all this from the inspectors last time around and President Bush regards Iraq as part of the "axisof evil" that sustains international terrorism.
Q. Why Iraq and not Israel and those others who have defied the UN?
A. Some 91 UN resolutions are currently being violated by countries other than Iraq and in many cases enforcement is being blocked by the US or its allies.
According to Prof Stephen Zunes of the University of San Francisco, Israel tops the defiance league with 31 breaches. However, in the 35 years which have passed since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, the UN Security Council has not once passed a binding resolution under the terms of Chapter Seven of the charter like that now in force against Iraq, Resolution 1441.
Instead the council has used Chapter Six which is concerned with the peaceful resolution of disputes and allows the council to make non-binding aspirational recommendations. All the resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict come under this chapter's ambit.
Chapter Seven, rarely used during the Cold War, gives the council broad powers to take military action and is binding on all members of the UN. The chapter was however used following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, repeatedly since then on Iraq and finally again last week.
Thus, legally, if perhaps not morally, the specific targeting of Iraq is justifiable in terms of the UN charter. Critics of the US would point out, however, that the UN's full legal armoury has not been deployed in the past because it suited the US to leave the organisation relatively powerless.