Labour warlord comes out fighting

Labour Party chairman John Reid tells Political Editor Chris Lloyd why force might be the only way.

JOHN Reid was in pugnacious mood as he arrived in Newcastle yesterday to win over hearts and minds.

But the chairman of the Labour Party reached the Royal Station Hotel for a lunchtime briefing still stinging from his previous day's encounter with the media. He thought he had been misquoted, misunderstood or misinterpreted when he had said that "a threat of the nature that massacred thousands of people in New York" was the reason for the increased airport security in Britain.

Such alarmist talk had blown up in his face all over the headlines, so he was choosing his words with care.

Today, Hans Blix, the head of the weapons inspectors, delivers his report to the United Nations Security Council about whether Iraq is complying with Resolution 1441. After receiving the report, the 15 members of the Council will decide what to do next.

"Fourteen forty-one", like "nine eleven", is a collection of numbers that is coming to mean an awful lot. It says a lot in its eight pages, and Dr Reid presented his own reading of it.

"Saddam Hussein has been in material breach of almost every resolution the UN has passed," he said, reflecting the position that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw will take at today's UN meeting. "He starts off guilty of material breaches, but the resolution gives him one final opportunity to do what he promised to do within 15 days of the 1991 ceasefire: to give up all his weapons of mass destruction. That was 600 weeks ago - not 60 minutes ago.

"The way he can take advantage of this final opportunity is through immediate, complete and unconditional co-operation, and complete disclosure to the inspectors of all his weapons, and to hand over such weaponry to them.

"If he does not do this he is yet again in material breach and will face more serious consequences. And that's where we are. That resolution speaks for itself, so the question to consider is whether he is complying with the terms of the resolution immediately, completely and unconditionally."

But the ending of 1441 is disappointingly vague. It doesn't lay out what the "serious consequences" might be. It certainly does not authorise the use of force.

However, the Americans will argue that the consequences can be found in Resolution 678 passed in 1990 when Iraq had invaded Kuwait. It said force could be used to eject Iraq and restore peace to the region. The US will argue that it is still trying to restore peace to the region - even though peace comes in the form of another wave of bombing.

Britain will press for a new resolution which will confirm the legitimacy of military action. Dr Reid admitted that this was the very least that Tony Blair needed if he is to carry the British people with him into war.

Dr Reid said: "Twenty per cent of people in this country take the view that there should be no military conflict under any circumstances: the classic pacifist position.

"I understand that position, I respect that position, I don't agree with that position because there are times when all other options run out. In our history, there have been times when action has not been taken and there has been greater loss of life. There are graveyards all over Europe and the world which have been watered by the tears of regret that something wasn't done earlier to stop Adolf Hitler. It eventually took 50 million lives.

"This is not to draw a direct comparison, but it is relevant."

He felt another ten per cent was gung-ho as force was the only language Saddam understood. But the second resolution was needed to convince the remaining 70 per cent.

"They believe Saddam is untrustworthy, that he has had weapons of mass destruction, that he still has weapons of mass destruction, and that he is concealing them," said Dr Reid.

"They have mixed emotions because they recognise he will respond only to force, but they don't want to support a war unless the UN says we have tried everything else and force is the only way."

When asked if the UN has tried everything else, and whether the French suggestion of more weapons inspectors could be construed as a "serious consequence" Dr Reid waded in with both fists flying.

"It isn't the job of the inspectors to go round searching every inch of Iraq to find weaponry which Saddam agreed 12 years ago to hand over," he said, punching out the French idea. "The inspectors are there to monitor the handing over of that weaponry and to supervise its destruction. He is obliged to hand them over and the only question is whether he has co-operated."

But, to 70 per cent of the British population, there are far more questions than the only one thrown up by fourteen forty-one.

Resolution 1441, written by the UK and the US and adopted by the Security Council on November 8, runs to eight pages which say:

* Iraq is in breach of at least nine Security Council resolutions which set out the terms of the ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Of particular importance is Resolution 687 which orders that Iraq must accept the destruction of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has breached these resolutions by failing to co-operate with the UN weapons inspectors, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

* However, rather than call Iraq to account immediately, it offers a "final opportunity" for Iraq to amend its behaviour. Iraq is ordered to make a full and complete declaration of the whereabouts of all of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - which it claimed it had done with its 12,000 page report.

* A new team of inspectors, Unmovic (the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) headed by Dr Hans Blix, was set up to check the veracity of Iraq's report. Iraq had to allow Unmovic unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access to all buildings and officials, including Saddam Hussein's seven presidential palaces.

* If Unmovic or the IAEA encounter any obstructions or unearth any evidence of Iraq's failure to disarm, they are to report to the Security Council (this is what Dr Blix is doing today). The Security Council will then meet "to consider the situation"

* But Resolution 1441 finishes inconclusively, simply saying that the Security Council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".

Who's who in the United Nations Security Council

The council is made up of 15 members. Five are permanent; the other ten are elected for a two-year term by the 191 member countries of the United Nations

Permanent Members

China

Sceptical about war and wants weapons inspections to continue.

France

Leader of the awkward squad. Does not want war. Wants the number of inspectors tripled, and to be given more time.

Russia

Standing shoulder to shoulder with France.

United Kingdom

Wants - in fact, Tony Blair desperately needs - a second Security Council resolution giving the UN's backing for a war. However, if no resolution is forthcoming, it will fall in behind the United States.

United States

Persuaded by Britain to go for a second resolution, but will be more than happy to unilaterally attack Iraq if the UN cannot agree on another resolution.

Elected Members

Angola

Uncertain. Seems to believe inspections are working, but might change its mind.

Bulgaria

Most of the eastern European countries recently freed from Communism are bac king the US to the hilt.

Cameroon

Wants a UN peace mission to go to Iraq in an attempt to avoid war.

Chile

Uncertain. Believes the UN "will have to use all the means at its disposal" to get Iraq to comply.

Germany

In bed with the French in demanding more time for more inspectors.

Guinea

Pro-inspections, but will probably succumb to US pressure.

Mexico

Would appear to support the French.

Pakistan

Does not want war, but could be brought into line by US pressure.

Spain

Wants a resolution, but believes war does not require one.

Syria

Opposed to war. Only reluctantly agreed to Resolution 1441