Timing is all in the cat and mouse game of Iraq's relations with the United Nations Security Council over arms inspections and economic sanctions. The announcement that Iraq is to suspend co-operation with the UNSCOM team investigating its programme of weapons of mass destruction reopens the question ahead of a decision due in October on whether to renew economic sanctions. It is clear the Security Council is divided on the matter. This latest crisis shifts the issue from the technical to the political sphere just at the moment when there is little stomach in the international community for a military move to force President Saddam Hussein's hand.
Last February's crisis was defused with the agreement brokered by Mr Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, which endorsed a compromise bringing diplomats onto the teams investigating Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces. This formula, floated by France and Russia, defused the Iraqi accusation that the teams were overloaded with US experts biased against Iraq. On this occasion, the Iraqi authorities have reopened the charge that the US dominates the investigation after the chief inspector, Mr Richard Butler, refused to declare that Iraq has got rid of its store of such weapons. He declares there is not yet sufficient evidence to say so.
So far as Iraq is concerned, there is a clear objective to get rid of the economic sanctions which have crippled it for nearly eight years. If they were intended to remove Saddam Hussein from power, they have not succeeded. They have undoubtedly had a devastating effect on millions of Iraqis, who have been deprived of basic foodstuffs and health facilities as a result. French and Russian interests see business opportunities opening up beyond sanctions, and there has been an active and concerned debate about their effectiveness. Other factors making for a different strategy on sanctions include the lack of will for military actions to enforce them and a growing realisation that they may have strengthened Saddam Hussein, not weakened him.
But the US and UK governments argue strenuously that to relax sanctions now, without satisfactory resolution of the arms inspection issue, would be to reward non-co-operation with the UN. And Iraq must take due account of Mr Annan's statement yesterday that it is in breach of February's agreement and a French statement to the same effect. According to Mr Butler, there is evidence to show that only a proportion of the weapons have been destroyed.
It is likely that the Security Council will proceed cautiously, in order to preserve its unity and authority. It is to be hoped the sanctions issue can be separated from set positions and pride over the weapons inspections programme. It may well be possible to call Saddam Hussein's bluff by developing the arrangements which currently enable Iraq to sell oil on the international market so long as the proceeds are devoted to basic necessities closely scrutinised by international inspectors.
If Iraq was given extended freedom to sell its oil so long as the revenue was devoted to building up economic and human resources, and on condition the arms inspection programme continued, Saddam Hussein's profile would look decidedly less powerful.