The Guardian (London) February 15, 2003
Threat of war: Analysis: Inspectors' report
The questions still to be answered: More progress made but suspicions linger as concessions fall short of hoped-for cooperation
By Owen Bowcott, Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor and Brian Whitaker
Missiles
Blix:
"The experts concluded that the two declared variants of the Samoud 2 missile were capable of exceeding 150km in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq. As for the Fatah, the experts found that clarification of the missile data supplied by Iraq was required before the capability of the missile system could be fully assessed. The experts have confirmed that the reconstituted casting chambers could still be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150km. Accordingly, these chambers remain proscribed. The experts also studied the data on the missile engine test stand that is nearing completion and have assessed it to be capable of testing missile engines with thrusts greater than that of the SA-2 engine. So far, the test stand has not been associated with a proscribed activity.
On the matter of the 380 SA-2 missile engines imported outside of the export/import mechanism, inspectors were informed by Iraq during an official briefing that these engines were intended for use in the Samoud 2 missile system, which has now been assessed to be proscribed. Any such engines configured for use in this missile system would also be proscribed."
Assessment:
The UN inspectors' finding that Iraq is developing missiles beyond the proscribed range of 150km was one of the few hard conclusions in Mr Blix's report, analysts said last night. "Baghdad will have to make a quick decision about whether to sacrifice operational missile systems," said Gary Samore, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Few last night believed that Saddam had any choice if he still believes he has a chance of heading off a military attack by the US.
Mr Blix did not employ the language of Tony Blair who this week described the Samoud 2 missile as a "significant breach" of UN resolutions.
"Blix says the way to deal with breaches is to destroy the weapons rather than say Iraq should be attacked," said Tim Ripley, of Lancaster University's centre for defence and international security studies.
UN inspectors found that the Samoud 2 missile had been test fired to a distance of 183km, 33km more than the UN limit. The extra range made little difference in Iraq's ability to attack its neighbours. However, the US and Britain have been increasingly concerned about Iraq's missile programme and the threat it posed to invading troops.
This is demonstrated by the stepping up of attacks on Iraq air defence systems by British and American aircraft attacking Iraqi missile sites in the "no-fly" zone in the south of the country.
On two consecutive days this week British and US planes attacked Ababil-100 missile batteries near Basra. The Ababil-100 is a highly mobile battlefield weapon derived from the Soviet Frog-7. It could pose a threat to allied forces in Kuwait and to troops invading Iraq from the south.
Mr Blix's language when he mentioned that Iraq had imported 380 missile engines - known to be from Ukraine - for the Samoud-2 system was firm but calm, observers noted.
Scientists
Blix:
"The matter of private interviews was discussed at length during our meeting. The Iraqi side confirmed the commitment, which it made to us on January 20, to encourage persons asked to accept such interviews, whether in or out of Iraq. So far, we have only had interviews in Baghdad.
A number of persons have declined to be interviewed, unless they were allowed to have an official present or were allowed to tape the interview. Three persons that had previously refused interviews on Unmovic's terms, subsequently accepted such interviews just prior to our talks in Baghdad on February 8 and 9. These interviews proved informative. No further interviews have since been accepted on our terms. I hope this will change. "
Assessment:
Interviews with Iraqi scientists are seen by the UN weapons inspectors as one of the keys to establishing whether Iraq retains chemical and biological weapons. As one western expert on Iraq said yesterday: "They know where the stuff has been buried."
Iraq last weekend made a concession by allowing three scientists to be interviewed in private, but Mr Blix indicated that this was far from enough. He stressed that he would like to conduct such interviews in Iraq free of Iraqi minders and tape recorders, or outside the country at the inspectors' base in Cyprus.
Andy Oppenheimer, an expert on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons at Jane's Terrorism and Security Monitor, said there was no evidence of nuclear activity and the key was the unaccounted for chemical and biological weapons. "The interviews will be one of the main routes to take," he said.
Kenneth Boutin, senior arms control and disarmament researcher at the London-based Verification Research, Training and Information Centre, said the interviews with the scientists were being conducted on an assumption on the part of the inspectors that there was something to find and that the scientists might "slip up and reveal something that they had not intended or that they might want to divulge".
But he said that presented a problem for the scientists, who may have taken in the tape recorders as a form of insurance against punishment by the Iraqi authorities: the scientists can use the tapes as proof they did not reveal anything they should not have.
Toby Dodge, an Iraq specialist at Warwick University, agreed: "The tape recorder is to stop them getting shot when they come out. I am saying that if I was a scientist, I would not be saying anything."
His reading was that Mr Blix's report was less negative than had been expected. He said the Iraqis had given Mr Blix enough concessions to allow him to ask for more time.
Joseph Cirincione, senior associate at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and author of Deadly Arsenals, Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction, said the strength of Mr Blix's report was that it was mixed. Mr Blix leavened the criticism of the statement last week by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, with criticism of the Iraqi approach to interviews with scientists.
Cooperation
Blix:
"I have urged the Iraqi side to enact legislation implementing the UN prohibitions regarding weapons of mass destruction. This morning we had a message that legislation has now been adopted by the Iraqi national assembly. This is a positive step.
The number of Iraqi minders during inspections had often reached a ratio as high as five per inspector. During the talks in January in Baghdad, the Iraqi side agreed to keep the ratio to about one to one. The situation has improved.
The Iraqi side also informed us that a commission has now been appointed with the task of searching all over Iraq for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programmes. It is headed by the former minister of oil, General Amer Rashid, and is to have very extensive powers of search in industry, administration and even private houses.
(Iraq has presented) a list of 83 names of participants "in the unilateral destruction in the chemical field, which took place in the summer of 1991". The presentation appears useful and pertains to cooperation on substance. I trust that the Iraqi side will put together a similar list of names of persons who participated in the unilateral destruction of other proscribed items, notably in the biological field."
Assessment:
There are signs Iraq is beginning to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, albeit belatedly and not necessarily in the most significant areas. A presidential decree formally banning the production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the establishment of two commissions to search for proscribed weapons and documents, and the presence of fewer Iraqi minders dogging the footsteps of the inspectors provided evidence of moves towards compliance with UN resolutions.
"The area of cooperation is one where his speech is more positive than last time," said Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford University's peace studies department after listening to Mr Blix's statement. "He's saying the Iraqis could have cooperated at any time over the past decade. (But) now there are indications, here and there, of cooperation developing. It was a softening of Blix's stance on this issue.
"There's a modest amount of movement on the question of (identifying) those who took part in the earlier destructions (of chemical weapons in the 1990s). The rate of inspection is now pretty high; it's on a far larger scale than in the 1990s. "
Andy Oppenheimer agreed that Mr Blix's account suggested progress was being made. "There are further signs of cooperation," he said. "But some will say the presidential decree and commissions have come about due to the (military) pressure being put upon Iraq.
"The Iraqis are eking out bits of cooperation; Powell will say they are playing for time. The inspectors, however, are plainly keen for more time to complete their task."
Providing a list of 83 names for those who took part in the earlier destructions of chemical weapons - in an attempt to prove most of Iraq's missing poisonous gases have already been destroyed - did not inspire any confidence in Daniel Neep, head of the Middle East programme at the Royal United Services Institute. "I would take it with a pinch of salt," he said. "They will tell 83 people what to say.
"Iraqi might be making a lot of concessions, but it's not in compliance with resolution 1441. Cooperation is not happening. Blix gave them a few brownie points, but that was for cooperation on issues of process not of substance.
"I'm very sceptical about the Iraqi commission to hunt for documents. It's headed by General Amer Rashid, a former oil minister, who was in charge of the weapons programme. It's absurd."
Chemical and biological weapons
Blix:
"We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq. One third of the quantity has already been destroyed.
How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, Unmovic has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded.
At the meeting in Baghdad on February 8 and 9, the Iraqi side addressed some of the important outstanding disarmament issues and gave us a number of papers, eg regarding anthrax and growth material, the nerve agent VX and missile production.
Although no new evidence was provided in the papers and no open issues were closed through them or the expert discussions, the presentation of the papers could be indicative of a more active attitude focusing on important open issues. "
Assessment:
There's no smoking gun here, said Prof Rogers,"but it's still a pretty grey area. Unmovic is getting rid of the mustard gas and there's the idea that Iraq may be slightly more forthcoming. They are slowly giving ground."
Iraq's aim, he suggested, is "clearly to delay for another couple of months". Prolonging the inspections could make an American-led attack on Iraq more difficult because of hot weather.
The main sticking point is still the 1,000 tonnes of Iraqi chemical agent identified by the previous Unscom inspections but not accounted for. Iraq says it destroyed it all a long time ago.
Iraq maintains that it has no documentary evidence of the destruction. "There's no reason why the Iraqi government doesn't have these documents," Patrick Garrett of GlobalSecurity.org said. "The lack of them is a complication."
Mr Garrett noted that "no solid additional information" about chemical and biological weapons has been disclosed by the inspections.
Expert panel
Paul Rogers Professor of peace studies at Bradford University
Patrick Garrett Associate analyst at GlobalSecurity.org
Daniel Neep Head of the Middle East programme at the Royal United Services Institute
Andy Oppenheimer Weapons expert with Jane's Terrorism and Security Monitor
Gary Samore Expert on weapons proliferation at the International Institute of Strategic Studies
Tim Ripley Research associate at the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies at Lancaster University
Kenneth Boutin Senior arms control and disarmament researcher at the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre
Toby Dodge Iraq specialist at Warwick University
Joseph Cirincione Senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Copyright © 2003, Guardian Newspapers Limited
