The Economist

To the Editors:

Your usually sound analysis and reporting seems to break down when it comes to Iraq (Sanctions Mess, December 4, 1999). You note that Iraq is likely to reject a new inspections regime if it is ever passed by the Security Council, and suggest that this is because President Hussein will view it as "intrusive."

Under the defunct inspections process, Iraq was ostensibly offered a full lifting of sanctions if it was judged to have complied with the Security Council's conditions.

But, the plan currently under discussion offers a mere suspension of sanctions at some indeterminate time in the future, in exchange for inspections now. Why should Iraq accept a plan which is on its face less generous than that which it had hitherto labored under?

You acknowledge that the UNSCOM inspections regime "had managed over half a dozen years or so to get rid of nearly all Iraq's prohibited weapons." The current Anglo-Dutch proposal reads as if nothing at all had happened and gives no credit for Iraq's substantial cooperation with a body that was not merely "instrusive," but riddled with spies and agents of countries intent on overthrowing the Iraqi government. Whatever one feels about this government, whose nature has changed little in twenty years, even though its relationship with its former Western patrons has, overthrowing it is not the goal or mandate of the United Nations.

Finally, you say that Iraq "threw the [UN] inspectors out." In fact it was the former head of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, who withdrew them just after he had submitted a report to the Security Council, written with the help of the United States, which he knew would precipitate the December 1998 air attacks on Iraq.

Sincerely,

Ali Abunimah