War with Iraq: the Iraqi position

By DAVID USBORNE

Iraq yesterday mocked America's plans for a military campaign to displace Saddam Hussein, saying that Washington was mistaken if it thought the task would be a replay of its successful ouster of the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.

Baghdad, which in recent days has veered between outright defiance of the United States and signalling an interest in a diplomatic solution, may have been emboldened by the crumbling in recent days of any remaining support for American action in many European capitals.

There has been a growing crescendo of clashing rhetoric from both sides, while in Europe leaders including President Jacques Chirac of France have given fresh voice to concerns that the US would violate international law if it took military action unilaterally.

In the US, Vice President Dick Cheney took the lead last week in presenting America's case for removing Saddam by force. He was backed up with comments from Donald Rumseld, the Defence Secretary, and President George Bush.

But in Beirut yesterday, the Iraqi Vice President, Taha Yassin Ramadan, poked fun at the notion that America would prevail as it had in Afghanistan. "We don't want to compare the two; Iraq is not Afghanistan," he said "I believe that the US administration is convinced of that."

Iraq's more defiant statements are primarily aimed at rallying Arab opposition to any American assault. Ramadan added that he was working with other Arab governments to present forge a common position critical of Washington at a meeting of Arab League ministers next week.

Simultaneously, however, Iraq manoeuvred to take advantage of growing schisms in the European Union and also within Britain, the only likely ally of Washington in the event that an attack is launched.

Prime Minister Tony Blair faces deepening resistance within his own party to a policy of supporting President Bush on Iraq. A recent survey show that almost two thirds of Labour Party constituency leaders are strongly opposed to any such alliance between London and Washington.

Notable also were comments on Thursday from President Chirac, who called the the possibility of unilateral US action "worrying" and said it would be contrary to "the cooperation of states, the respect of law and the authority of the Security Council."

France and other countries are arguing that the US should not act without a fresh resolution from the UN.

Likewise, Gerhard Schroeder, the German Chancellor fighting for re-election, urged President Bush to take note of European hesitation. "If consultations are meant seriously, they must not just be about the how and the when, but also on the question of whether this is done at all," he said in an interview in yesterday's edition of the Muenchner Merkur daily.

Thus, Vice President Ramadan also peppered his comments this week with hints of Iraq's willingness to pursue a diplomatic solution. He argued, nonetheless, that a deadlock between Iraq and the UN on pursuing a possible return to Iraq of UN weapons inspectors was being blocked by Washington. Iraq is seeking new technical talks on a return of the teams.

"We believe that dialogue is still continuing, but the freezing and suspending of it, and the failure to set dates for new sessions, came as a result of pressure by the US administration," Ramadan said on Lebanese television.

The Iraq also dismissed an announcement by Iraqi opposition leaders that a meeting to be held in September would seek to elect an opposition government in exile. "This talk about the Iraqi opposition is insignificant, something that doesn't merit a reply. It doesn't exist, and has no roots on the ground in Iraq," Ramadan scoffed.

President Bush, who has ceded the stage mostly to Mr Cheney on Iraq in recent days, nonetheless spoke up on the need to remove Saddam while on a fund-raising visit to Arizona. "We owe it to our children, we owe it to our grandchildren to make sure that the world's worst leaders do not develop and deploy the world's worst weapons," the President said.

A warning against prevarication came, meanwhile, from Lord Hannay, the cross-bencher and a former British ambassador to the United Nations. Speaking to the BBC, he spoke of the danger of simply "hoping for the best" when it comes to Saddam.

"I do not think we can afford to sit back and cross our fingers and hope for the best that Saddam is not going to develop these weapons, which he was very close to getting in the 1990s", he said. "We are a very long way from the end of the business."

- INDEPENDENT