'Critical week' for prevention of war

By VERNON SMALL deputy political editor

Prime Minister Helen Clark and her Australian counterpart John Howard yesterday warned that the world was entering "a critical week" as efforts to prevent a war against Iraq neared an end.

But the two continued to "quarantine" their differences over the issue.

Speaking at a joint press conference, Helen Clark said there was "no daylight" between Australia and New Zealand over the need to disarm Saddam Hussein. The United States' military build-up had forced more co-operation from Iraq.

But she and Mr Howard disagreed on the "means and timetable".

New Zealand supports multilateral action through the United Nations and believes diplomacy should be given more time.

However Australia has deployed 2000 troops to the Gulf and is likely to join a US-led invasion, even without UN backing.

Helen Clark said the timetables for war and for diplomacy were now "out of sync".

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had signalled disarmament would take months.

"Clearly the way the military build-up has gone doesn't provide for months; it tends now to provide for days. And the critical issue in the international negotiations this week is whether there is a way through that," Helen Clark said.

The US, Britain and Australia could not keep their forces in the Gulf indefinitely.

"So ... how are people going to be convinced that the inspection process will be able to keep up traction and keep momentum? I think that's what's underlying the debate about whether we should be talking days or months."

She said terrorism was never justified, but a war with Iraq could cause problems for Arab states friendly to the West and help terrorist groups recruit new members.

"Now that's not to say that a war in any circumstances is never justified at all, but I just say that people look for causes to hook their fanatical actions around. And undoubtedly a war in Iraq, whatever the authorisation, would be such a cause."

Mr Howard said terrorist acts in New York, Washington and Bali were driven by "blind hatred" of Western civilisation and values. Calibration of responses to that would not automatically buy immunity.

The best way to avoid a conflict was for all 15 Security Council members to tell Iraq "the game is up".

"While there is a divided expression of world opinion, the encouragement is there in Baghdad to believe that they don't have to finally come clean."

But Helen Clark said if Iraq had drawn that conclusion, it was wrong.

She was concerned that unilateral US-led action could establish a bad precedent.

" ... we have to think the step ahead; to what if another power, with whom we didn't share those values, used that precedent in a way that we didn't find very attractive at all."

On the final day of his three-day visit, Mr Howard met Cabinet ministers for an hour-long meeting to discuss the state of the economy, free-trade talks with the US, transtasman business and social security issues and a planned joint agency to regulate therapeutic products such as dietary supplements.

He also held talks with National leader Bill English and met a group of firefighters to thank them for their help during recent bushfires in Australia.

Amid tight security, about 600 anti-war protesters kept up a barrage of noise during Mr Howard's visit to Parliament, which included a Beehive banquet in his honour.

Agreeing to disagree

For half an hour yesterday, the Australian and New Zealand prime ministers faced intense questioning at a joint press conference about their differing positions on Iraq.

John Howard endorses American-led unilateral force being used to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Helen Clark says diplomacy must be given time to work and, anyway, military force must first get the approval of the United Nations Security Council.

Political editor John Armstrong summarises the prime ministers' responses to questions.

John Howard believes

* Iraq is a test of the "relevance" of the Security Council in terms of exerting united pressure on Saddam Hussein. "If the Security Council cannot discipline Iraq, whatever hope have they of disciplining North Korea?"

* The build-up of United States and British forces in the Gulf has pressured Iraq to comply with UN weapons inspections.

* Military action against Iraq will not provoke more acts of international terrorism because they [terrorists] have anyway long been motivated by "blind hatred" of Western civilisation. However, disarming Iraq is a necessary part of the wider war against terrorism because Iraq's chemical and biological weapons could be given to or fall into the hands of terrorists.

* Australia's position on military force is not in breach of international law.

* His country's close defence ties with the US are an "important consideration" in the stance taken by Australia.

Helen Clark believes

* Predictions of the demise of the Security Council are premature and its members are united on the objective of disarming Iraq.

* The threat of military action has prompted Iraqi co-operation with weapons inspectors, but the United States' timetable for war and other countries' timetable for diplomacy "are a little out of sync".

* War with Iraq could destabilise neighbouring Arab states who are friendly to the West and will be used as a "recruiting tool" by terrorist organisations.

* Unilateral military action would not necessarily breach international law, but could set a precedent for other powerful nations to use in ways which "we did not find very attractive at all".