Editorial: Evidence on Iraq won't do

Friends of the United States have been asking for many months for evidence that could justify their forcible removal of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The evidence available after President George W. Bush's meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the weekend will not do. It rests on a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency featuring satellite photographs of new construction at several sites previously associated with Iraq's attempt to develop nuclear weapons. But the agency cannot say that the constructions have a nuclear purpose.

In 1998, it estimated that Iraq could be six months away from producing a nuclear weapon. That four-year-old report assumes significance in Mr Bush's case because American officials say Iraq has been trying for the past 14 months to acquire bomb-making equipment. In particular, it has attempted to buy aluminium tubes used in centrifuges to enrich uranium. "I don't know what more evidence we need," says Mr Bush.

He needs hard evidence of a compelling threat to the world. If Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons it is of concern to countries near and far and every lawful means must be used to prevent it. But that does not extend to a military invasion for the purpose of sweeping the regime aside ... and then what? That is the question that really haunts America's friends.

If the US is going to remove a foreign Government it needs to help to replace it with rulers who are more acceptable to the country concerned and capable of governing effectively. Nothing Mr Bush has said about his plans give any confidence that he can leave Iraq in a better state than he has left Afghanistan. Warlords rule the Afghan regions and the nominal national leader in Kabul narrowly escaped an assassination attempt last week.

Mr Bush was justified in removing the Taleban with not much idea of what might replace them, because that regime was sheltering an organisation that had just perpetrated the most painful direct attack the US had suffered since Pearl Harbour. Every country understood the outrage that compelled the US to rid the world of the Taleban and every civilised Government would support the US in its pursuit of al Qaeda wherever it might be found.

If Saddam Hussein was suspected of harbouring the fugitive organisation, few would quibble with Mr Bush's plans now. But Saddam's only link with al Qaeda seems to be that Mr Bush fears Iraq will give nuclear devices to the terrorists should it acquire them.

Mr Bush's father, when President, invoked a new world order that would supersede the Cold War balance of power. In that new order the US would use its power to keep countries from invading others as Iraq did Kuwait. Subsequently, under President Bill Clinton, the US used its power to intervene in civil wars, too, in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, where great numbers of people were being killed or displaced.

Even the most powerful country in the world cannot throw its weight around willy nilly if any sort of world order is to endure. When the sovereignty of other nations is compromised it must be done for good and consistent principles. If ever Saddam Hussein deserved to be forcibly removed it was for his use of gas against Iraqi Kurds.

But since his eviction from Kuwait Saddam has been no more than defiant, expelling UN weapons inspectors and ensuring that his miserable population continues to suffer under economic sanctions. The UN ought now to demand the unconditional return of the inspectors and promise to lift sanctions as soon as Iraq can be cleared of nuclear and biological suspicion. But, unless Mr Bush can produce a better case for military intervention, Iraq's leadership remains a matter for Iraqis to resolve.

Further reading:
Feature: War with Iraq

Iraq links and resources