Eamonn Fitzgerald's Rainy Day

"An Update On Inspection" was the rather prosaic title of the report that Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, delivered yesterday to the UN Security Council. The passages that may yet prove decisive were the following:

"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. . .

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. . . .

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, 'All imported quantities of growth media were declared.' This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax."

Having read this, does anyone now seriously doubt that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction hidden away from prying eyes? Let's be honest here because we know enough about his brutality and his evil intentions. So what should be done? Wait and hope the UN can keep him penned in? Or do whatever is necessary to end the threat he poses?

These are the stark choices President Bush faces as he prepares to address the people of the US in his State of the Union speech tonight. And they cannot be avoided. And he carries the terrible burden of making the right one for if he does nothing, the worst could happen (Saddam might equip terrorists with weapons far more powerful than anything we have seen before), but if he does something, the worst could also happen (Iraq might use such weapons in a war and the conflict in the Middle East could spread).

Because the world has already decided that Iraq's weapons must be destroyed, because numerous UN resolutions demand Saddam's disarmament, Rainy Day takes the position that it is in the interest of those who value freedom to support intervention in Iraq to remove the barbarous regime in Baghdad. A fortunate by-product of such action would be the shifting of the Middle East towards values such as the rule of law, freedom of speech, the right to self-determination, the rights of women and the ending of capricious cruelty.

A time to choose is at hand. Nations must decide between playing self-interested politics or preparing to risk lives to enforce civilized norms.

Diarist of the day: Rev. James Wooforde, 28 January 1780

"We had for dinner a Calf's Head, boiled Fowl and Tongue, a Saddle of Mutton rosted on the Side Table, and a fine Swan rosted with Currant Jelly Sauce for the First Course. The Second Course a couple of Wild Fowl, called Dun Fowls, Larks, Blamange, Tarts, etc., etc, and a good Desert of Fruit after amongst which was a Damson Cheese. I never eat a bit of Swan before, and I think it is good eating with a sweet sauce. The swan was killed 3 weeks before it was eat and yet not the lest bad taste in it."