Should weapons inspectors return to Iraq?

Hans Blix, the UN chief arms inspector has told the UN Security Council that "loose ends" must be sorted out with Iraq before inspections resume.

He made the comments after briefing the Security Council on his talks with Iraqi officials in Vienna on Tuesday.

He said that outstanding issues to be resolved included inspectors' access to President Saddam Hussein's palaces.

There was also a need for assurances that Iraqi officials would not hamper inspectors' attempts to interview individuals inside Iraq.

Mr Blix said that Iraq would not give firm guarantees about the security of inspectors flying through the no-fly zones which are patrolled by US and UK warplanes.

He is expected to meet US Government officials in Washington on Friday.

The Americans and British insist that a new, tough resolution must be passed before the inspectors return.

How should the US react? Should the weapons inspectors return to Iraq?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

Russia, France and China are not in principle against a more practical wording of a new Resolution but oppose the use of any expression threatening the use of force. The purpose of the United Nations and its Security Council is to avoid conflict through non-aggressive actions and dialogue. The use of any words threatening use of force is not only unnecessary but goes against the grain of good diplomacy, entering instead the primary realm of bullying and muscle-flexing.
Yamedjeu, Belgium

If America's primary objective is to rid the world of Saddam and his weapons then they should first help establish an alternative government in exile and ensure that this has international acceptance before toppling Saddam. Attacking Iraq now, destroying the country's infrastructure, deposing Saddam and leaving the region without an alternative legitimate government in Iraq will possibly destabilise the whole region.
Cesar Izzat, UK

The concept of the UN inspectors is fatally flawed.

Mark, USA

The concept of the UN inspectors is fatally flawed. They will never again find anything. The only fair inspection will come after Saddam Hussein is deposed, the US disarms and occupies Iraq, and the inspectors can force their way in wherever they want, whenever they want with a heavily armed escort. Only then is there a chance to discover the WMD factories.
Mark, USA

This is absolutely about oil. It's about the oil deals that Russia, China, and France have made with Saddam's administration. These countries are afraid of the U.S. nullifying Saddam's administration which would essentially nullify the their oil deals!
Vaughn, United States

You people are not listening. I just watched an interview from one of the first inspectors that had been in Iraq on CNN. He stated the Iraqis played games - moving their mass destruction weapons around. He took pictures of it and even video taped some of it. He also says he told off one of the Iraqi guards, stating they were in contempt of the resolutions. They didn't listen. This was a real eye opener. He stated nothing will change as they will let us back in and play the games once again. It totally convinced me that George Bush is on the right track.
Jan, USA

There is no need for weapons inspectors to return to Iraq now or at any time. President Bush has his own domestic problems and so has president Sadaam. The two will act like superstars for the world media, Iraqis will suffer financially, socially and endure a lots of casualties. The American will suffer financially and with them the rest of us. We need the real world leader
Ali Sanjarani, UK

I am speechless at the way the US is bullying the international community around

Eugene, Canada

I am speechless at the way the US is bullying the international community around to try and get everyone involved in something that has nothing more to do than oil. I'm not sure what's worse - the US flexing its muscles explicitly or the puppets that have decided to follow. The previous sanctions were put into place to cripple the country and hopefully topple Saddam's regime. It has successfully crippled the country and its people but Saddam is still in place. This must infuriate the US, so now it is basically declaring war to take care of unfinished business.
Eugene, Canada

Why do the weapons inspectors have to await the outcome of a new resolution? 99% of the areas they cover in Iraq can be inspected by today's standards. It will take them more then a few weeks to confirm if there are any WMD in there. By that time hopefully the US and UK will have figured out if the others UN SC members will allow new UN rules to cover the other 1% of Iraq. Unless the objective is to have war now.
B Selvadurai, Malaysia

Why does George Bush want a war against Iraq so badly when he has not succeeded in protecting the citizens he vowed to protect? Doesn't he realise that terrorising innocent citizens of Iraq while attempting to take out his own personal vendetta against Saddam makes him a terrorist in the minds of people he claims to protect. We all know that neither George Bush and his family nor Saddam Hussein and his family will ever get hurt in all of these political power tussles. Let the UN deal with the situation. I also hope that he realises that while he is busy concentrating on Saddam, Bin Laden is busy planning his next attack.
Yinka, UK

Before any visit by the UN officials to Iraq, the UN should have inspectors thoroughly check the sites of the current members of the Security Council, beginning with the United States. Once these countries have a clean chit they can begin to point fingers at others.
Geraldine, USA

In my view, all possible ways of resolving this impasse peacefully should given a chance rather than feigning reasons to use military options. Military options are costly and only create wounds that will take immemorable time to heal.
Fairview Bulungula, Kenya

Bush wants a war no matter what Iraq, the UN, Congress, or the EU decide

Nancy, USA

George W Bush wants a war. He wants a war no matter what Iraq, or the UN, or Congress, or the European Union decide. It's all about oil and even if Saddam Hussein invited the inspectors into the Presidential Palace for tea, Bush would still want a war.
Nancy, USA

I am utterly ashamed to be British while my "leader" pursues this foolish policy. The UN resolutions demanded by Bush with his pet poodle Blair are designed not to avert war, but to ensure it. Much more of this and I am off to France or Germany.
Edward, UK

Why aren't weapons inspectors allowed into the US? Why is this never even raised? The US already has weapons of mass destruction, has used them to devastating effect in the past, refuses to sign anti-proliferation treaties for chemical weapons, tears up ballistic missile treaties, etc. So, USA, get your own house in order before throwing your weight about.
GB, UK

The US does not want peace, it's been bullying Iraq long enough to get its way - war. This war will spread like bushfire.
Missy, Netherlands

There is little point sending weapons inspectors to Iraq. President Bush has made it perfectly clear that he intends to invade anyway. And Tony Blair will of course do as he's told.
GB, UK

The entire region will be destabilised and then we really will be in trouble

James, United Kingdom

Let's hope and pray that any action taken against Iraq, violent or not, the US alone or a coalition, doesn't depose Saddam from power without something in place to take the reins (unlike the mess in Afghanistan). Otherwise the entire region will be destabilised, and then we really will be in trouble. Once again, the West will have messed about with another countries system of government, and will then withdraw, leaving the people of Iraq to suffer the consequences.
James, United Kingdom

Sending weapons inspectors to Iraq while they remain excluded from presidential palaces and "sensitive sites" like Republican Guard headquarters would be completely pointless. If you knew there was somewhere people couldn't look, isn't that where you would hide it?
Martin Barrett, UK

This is just another delaying tactic from Saddam. We must demand unrestricted access for UN inspectors with armed protection. It's clearly time for the world to move against Saddam's evil regime. Those who oppose action against Iraq are either fools or morally defective.
J M, UK

The UN might as well close its doors

Jonathan, UK

If the US/UK attack Iraq without the explicit backing of the member states of the UN, then the UN might as well close its doors, because its authority will have been forever undermined. All sides must make a compromise and Iraq must fully comply will all the resolutions currently in force against them - Iraq lost the Gulf War -and Iraq have agreed during their surrender negotiations to destroy their WMDs.
Jonathan, UK

Frankly, the US doesn't really care one bit about getting weapons inspectors back into the country. The US administration wants to decide when a war is going to take place, how it's going to take place, and they're not going to let a bunch of weapons inspectors with no loyalty to them get in the way of them waging the war. That's why they'll thwart whatever efforts are made towards a peace process until they're satisfied the UN security council is sufficiently bullied into giving them the power they want. A child throwing a tantrum.
David Hill, Canada

I'm fuming. Here, we have a chance to get inspectors back in and avoid war. But no, America wants new resolutions, knowing Iraq won't agree with them. This will then give Bush his excuse to attack. The whole thing stinks!!! The UN should stick by the existing mandates and not let America and UK dictate to them.
Darrin, UK

What disturbs me is that a lot of people are talking as if Iraq was a vaguely democratic country. It is not, what it is a dictatorship that has waged war on its neighbours for no other reason than to expand its borders, and used chemical weapons against people within its own borders. The sooner that it is clear that the Iraqi regime does not possess any WMD the quicker the sanctions can be lifted and that sorry country can be rebuilt, hopefully under a different leadership.
Charles, UK

Why are we trying to write new mandates when the old ones are not being recognized?

Brent Ross, USA

There are already UN mandates about WMD and weapons inspectors. Iraq has flagrantly disregarded these resolutions. Why are we trying to write new mandates when the old ones are not being recognized? Saddam has proven over and over again that he can't be trusted, he is only stalling. Perhaps we could do a covert "snatch and grab" to bring some hard evidence out of Iraq and remove the need for all this posturing.
Brent Ross, USA

I think this resolution is the best step we can take right now. Including consequences in the text is essential because we've all seen how little respect Saddam has shown past UN mandates that don't force him to comply. And he's shown his initial promise of unrestricted access to be a lie by rejecting the review of "presidential palaces. I'm afraid that if unrestricted access isn't a priority, any future inspections could very well be a sham.
CG, USA

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait. This was an illegal action under International Law, and the UN was quite justified in assembling a military force to evict Iraq from Kuwait. As part of the surrender, Iraq was required to destroy its WMD. By rights, Iraq should honour that agreement. However, such documents are not just words, there is a moral spirit behind them. By using UNSCOM to spy on Iraq, the U.S.A. broke the spirit of that agreement, and Iraq was quite correct in removing the inspectors from its land. Therefore as part of the new agreement (if it is passed) the Iraqi government should be allowed to monitor the movements of the weapons inspectors, and should be able to demand unconditional access to the notes and reports of the weapons inspectors, any time, any place, anywhere.
Rohan Beckles, United Kingdom

People in my part of the country are not particularly concerned about building a coalition.

John Knight, USA

Iraq will appear to cooperate with the UN in order to delay a US led attack. Frankly, that is the only reason they are talking to the UN now and everyone knows this. I would rather not have a war with Iraq or anyone else. The exception to this for me would be a link of Iraq to Al-Qaeda. If this were shown, I would favour an attack on Iraq with the US acting alone. Right or wrong, if a war comes with Iraq, the people in my part of the country are not particularly concerned about building a coalition. People here do not feel that the US needs a coalition nor does it need permission from the UN.
John Knight, USA

Why all this belief that the UN is some sort of great arbiter? It isn't. It is nothing more than a talking shop where heads of state can posture and pretend to be global players. UN resolutions are just bargaining chips with no real force behind them. If countries think they can ignore them, they will. And frequently have done. I don't recall Argentina quitting the Falklands because of a UN resolution.
Peter Cowan, UK

We have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt for over 10 years, yet he still lies, evades, deceives, uses WMD on his own people. The time for talk and half-measures is over. Is your idea of diplomacy and defence really that of a catcher's mitt?
Daley Dunham, San Francisco, USA

I like the tough language

Anwar Bashir, Canada

Yes this is the right way... I like the tough language of the resolution. All the weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated from Iraq, but why Iraq only? Why not from US, Israel, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Australia and similar countries trying to act as bullies?
Anwar Bashir, Canada

American papers are reporting the deadline as seven days to turn over a thorough accounting of the weapons. Pretty darn demanding coming from an administration who still hasn't managed to turn over Dick Cheney's energy task force list after 18 months! Saddam is refusing, I bet, because he knows it won't make any difference to Bush if he DID comply.
Cherie Adam, USA

Iraq has the right to act on its own as well

Taha, USA

Iraq will agree as far as it doesn't hurt its integrity. Why should Iraq disarm? Why shouldn't the US or Britain disarm? What good is the UN when countries like the US act upon their own? In such circumstances Iraq has the right to act on its own as well.
Taha, USA

I'm not sure if it's fair or not. I wonder why France is on the security council? Wouldn't it make more sense to have another country that perhaps is a little more influential in the world? I think it's time for France to be "de-selected" as I cannot see how their place is justified.
Karl, US

I really feel sad for the Muslim nations. These so-called civilised nations exploited oil first and now they want unlimited access to dig holes into their homes and mosques. Would any Western nation allow this kind of behaviour by another nation? These western nations must understand how humiliated the Muslim world will feel when these kinds of action are taken.
John, UK

The US has no intention of allowing the inspectors a realistic chance

Mitch, UK

The resolution is deliberately worded to cause maximum embarrassment to the Iraqi leadership in an effort to undermine their rule. Never forget the last UN inspectors were thrown out of Iraq for spying (a point uncontested by the US). The new inspectors should be given time to undertake their tasks in a complete, non-confrontational manner without the threat of a military strike occurring whilst they are in Iraq. The US has no intention of allowing the inspectors a realistic chance of examining Iraqi sites before they deploy forces.
Mitch, UK

The French position is the most sensible. The proposed new resolution is both unnecessary and belligerent considering Iraq's unconditional readmission of the weapons inspectors.
VGM, Malaysia

The required standard will always exceed the possible, because the goal of the process for the Bushies is a legalistic smokescreen for a predetermined war, not compliance.
Steven Kite, US

This is the first step in a foreign occupancy

H Gleaves, UK

Unlimited weapons inspections, with a supporting armed contingent? This is the first step in a foreign occupancy. This is an offer that predictably can't be accepted without Hussein losing his position. To propose something that the other cannot accept is contemptuous.
H Gleaves, UK

It's perfectly fair. Iraq has been prevaricating, deceiving and manipulating the UN for years and shows no sign of changing its ways. How many chances does Saddam expect to be given? Saddam has only himself to blame. Enough is enough.
NK, UK

There becomes no room for dialogue and no side can back down gracefully

Barry B, UK

The resolution is over-aggressive. It is one thing to confront Saddam strongly and gather supporters. The resolution, and the tone, indicate that the US with the UK in tow, is seeking a pretext to force a war. War becomes increasingly likely, as there becomes no room for political dialogue and no side can back down gracefully. Pity the poor Iraqi civilians.
Barry B, UK

Why don't Bush and Blair allow the inspectors to go into Iraq first? Why not give them benefit of doubt and see what happens?
Simon Weli, Norway

What does unlimited access mean? Could it mean digging up holy sites or knocking holes in the walls of mosques? When Iraq accepts the terms of this resolution then it will not only have agreed to the unlimited access of the weapons inspectors, it will have accepted that if it doesn¿t allow the inspectors to do pretty much anything they choose, Iraq will face a military attack. I think this is asking too much .
Sarah, Germany

I think the resolution would be fair, they have 30 days to produce the files; in past inspections they have produced documentation very quickly, 30 days is a long time just to gather documents. I would like to see this as the first step to the strengthening of the UN, first Iraq, next Israel. We need to go in, make countries comply and protect them afterwards.
Michael Pearce, UK

The US and UK are being unreasonable

Ameena, USA

I think the US and UK are being unreasonable: to go into houses of worship and people's homes is ignorant. I see a solution, why doesn't the US show what they have? I mean what does the US have to hide, if Iraq gives up their mass destruction weapons, the US will ultimate power over every country, why should they have that? What guarantee do we have that the US will not use their own mass destruction weapons to wipe out anyone they wish?
Ameena, USA

Twelve years Iraq has had to comply with the UN. The UN has sat by. I empathise with the UK prime minister's position. This discussion has been going on now for many weeks, and still Iraq "refuses" to accept any UN deadline? What have they been doing in that time? And as for going into places of worship being ignorant, oh please - are you actually supporting the same Hussein who put anti-aircraft and other weapons on hospital and schoolhouse rooftops, with no regard for his own people? I fear we have all been ignorant, wilfully so, for far too long.
Rene de Pontbriand, USA

In reply to Rene De Pontbriand, Iraq complied with around 95% of all requests made of them by Unscom for 7 years. They only asked the inspectors to leave when the Washington Post exposed the US inspectors as spies.
Gary , UK

Its about time that Iraq admitted exactly what it has and allowed weapon inspectors. If Saddam does not wish to be invaded, he knows exactly what he has to do.
James Collins, England

I favour France's approach

Thomas Billiouw, Belgium

In my opinion this new resolution is unfair. I favour France's dual-resolution approach. America's latest moves including linking al-Qaeda and Saddam prove that they will find or create any pretext what so ever to initiate war, the rhetoric has been too strong, a clash is inevitable. If the USA attacks Baghdad without a mandate then this is the end of the United Nations.
Thomas Billiouw, Belgium

Yes it is fair, but so are the already-passed resolutions regarding the Middle East conflict. We all would be strong supporters if the double standards ended and all resolutions were implemented equally as strongly. Until then we have to conclude that it's all about oil and shoring up Israel.
Dr Fadhel Al-Arrayed, Bahrain

There is nothing Iraq can do to avoid a war

Thomas Billiouw, Belgium

In my opinion there is nothing Iraq can do to avoid a war. There has been too much said and done for the USA to be satisfied without a war because it will seem weak. The goals Iraq will have to meet will always be set higher then those are possible to meet.
Thomas Billiouw, Belgium

it is not a resolution but an ultimatum - personally, I believe it to be as vindictive and incompetent as the ultimatum issued by the Austrians against Serbia in 1914 which resulted in the First World War. If Britain and America want to be seen as the civilised nations in this dispute, they are failing very badly.
Richard Haut, Nice, France