IRAQ: Whether or not you believe Saddam Hussein is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, developing a nuclear capacity and preparing to launch attacks on the outside world is a very subjective issue. There is much assertion, but little evidence; suspicion abounds but concrete detail is scarce.
Not surprisingly, the Iraqi Vice President, Mr Taha Yassin Ramadan, yesterday reiterated Iraq's contention that the country "is free of arms of mass destruction" and accused the United Nations chief weapons inspector, Dr Hans Blix, of being a "spy".
Dr Blix, for his part, had challenged Baghdad at the weekend to allow UN arms inspectors unconditional access to prove its claims that it had no such weapons.
However he said there was no clear-cut proof that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction. "If I had manifest or solid evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, I would bring them to the Security Council. We do not," he said.
There were 700 sites that his inspection team would like to look at. "The Iraqis claim they have nothing; well if that is so, they should be interested in letting us in."
The newspaper USA Today reported recently that "US intelligence cannot say conclusively that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" and that the resulting "information gap" was complicating efforts to build support for an attack on Saddam's regime.
The Iraqi ambassador to the UN, Mr Mohammed Aldouri, last Saturday denied that his country had ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel or that it had ties to the Islamic militants behind the September 11th terrorist attacks.
But he stopped short of offering UN weapons inspectors unconditional access to his country, calling instead for talks to resolve "remaining" issues between Iraq and the international community.
The position was at odds with that of the UN, which insists that Baghdad permit its inspectors unrestricted access to any facility that could be involved in manufacturing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
The world body's approach was reaffirmed by Dr Blix, who said that the UN must be able to fully reassess the situation in Iraq since it pulled out its inspectors in December 1998.
Baghdad was forced to destroy its arsenal of medium-range Scud missiles under the terms of UN ceasefire resolutions that brought an end to the 1991 Gulf War. The resolutions also limited the range of its ballistic missile force to 150 kilometres (95 miles).
A 1999 Security Council resolution requires UN weapons inspectors to visit Iraq and then determine within 60 days what questions the country still must answer about its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs. The Security Council must approve the list of outstanding issues.
"We have been analysing the archives and reports and it's still true that the biological sector has the largest number of question marks," Dr Blix said. "The nuclear file has the fewest."
The UN Special Commission, known as UNSCOM, which was created after the 1991 Gulf War to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, was accused by Iraq of spying for the United States. Its last head was Mr Richard Butler.
It was replaced in December 1999 by a new inspection agency, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, known as UNMOVIC, headed by Dr Blix.
As a member of the Security Council, Ireland is intimately involved in this whole issue. Ireland's position has been that the issue should be resolved on the basis of international legality. There should be a renewed focus on the twin aims of disarmament in accordance with Council resolutions and an end to sanctions, through Iraq admitting UN inspectors and co-operating fully with them.
UN sources believe that in the absence of concrete evidence of an Iraqi arms buildup with warlike intent, any attempt to secure Council approval for a US invasion would be vetoed by Russia, with the possible support of China and France.
The largely unspoken issue in the current controversy is the competition between US and Russian oil companies to develop the Iraqi oil industry. An Iraq without Saddam would benefit the Americans; an Iraq without sanctions would play into Russian hands.