According to the US Secretary of State, Ms Madeleine Albright, a decision on whether to use military force against Iraq in retaliation for its refusal to co-operate with United Nations arms inspectors is now only weeks away. The US administration is certainly talking up this latest crisis and pushing it towards military confrontation. There should be no doubting the seriousness of the issues at stake, given the lethal nature of the weapons Iraq is suspected of concealing and the widespread fears that Saddam Hussein is willing to use them against neighbouring states. But diplomacy remains the more effective as well as the preferable means of handling the crisis.
Ms Albright would prefer a diplomatic solution but is pessimistic about it succeeding. The United States is closely in touch with Russian and French efforts to broker a compromise in coming days. Everyone is aware that without the possible threat of military force diplomacy will have less chance. But that is not to say force can or should be used unilaterally by the US and Britain without a fresh Security Council mandate.
Such a unilateral action would take from its legitimacy and from the UN's authority at a time when efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation are perilously threatened. It would allow Iraq to claim popular victim status in the Middle East by pointing clearly to the lack of a Security Council consensus, not to mention the argument that it might be designed to deflect attention from President Clinton's domestic crisis.
The UN has a mandate to disarm Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They include the most dangerous biological and chemical weapons and the missile technology that could deliver them in attacks on neighbouring states. The British Foreign Secretary, Mr Robin Cook, has said Iraq is currently manufacturing enough anthrax every week to fill two missile warheads. The destruction and death that could result from the use of such gas are unimaginable.
The suspicion that such a programme is still under way fully justifies the United Nations concern and demand for access to suspected sites. It is difficult to imagine what Iraq hopes to gain by allowing such suspicions to persist as it hopes to convince the international community that UN sanctions should be lifted, or the oil-for-food arrangements relaxed.
The US and Britain continue to be the hawks, calling for military reprisal. But France and Russia supported the unanimous resolution on arms inspection, based on clear-cut evidence that full access is required to satisfy the international community that Iraq is complying with the UN mandate. If the Iraqis truly believe sanctions could be lifted in the near future they should rapidly reconsider their failure to co-operate rather than risk strengthening the demand that military force be used against them. Diplomacy remains the better way, but it requires reciprocity if it is to be a credible option.