Richard Pearle

After eight weeks of wrangling, a result no-one had anticipated.

All 15 members of the United Nations security council backed a tough new resolution which demands full and immediate access for weapons inspectors and threatens serious consequences if the Iraqis do not comply.

Perhaps the most unpleasant surprise of the day for Saddam Hussein was the fact that even Syria fell into line. And that was something of a surprise for Security Council members too, and apparently down to a pincer movement by Colin Powell and Jack Straw.

As a veteran of global conflicts Richard Pearle joined Kirsty Wark to discuss the consequences and the timetable to action.

KIRSTY WARK:
In your view, is this test too difficult for Saddam to pass?

RICHARD PEARLE:
We don't know yet, of course. But if past history is any guide he will find it very difficult to comply with all the aspects of this resolution.

KIRSTY WARK:
In the past, you were very dismissive of the UN, you just wanted to bypass them, have you changed your mind?

RICHARD PEARLE:
I think what Hans Blix just said, which is now the UN is getting serious, but it hasn't been in the past. That is the only way you can interpret his last remark. I think he's right. It wasn't serious in the past. We will see whether it is now serious. This is a test, not only for Saddam Hussein, it's a test for Hans Blix and the United Nations.

KIRSTY WARK:
But, when Hans Blix talks about using his common sense to decide whether there has been non-compliance, and he says , "One flat tyre wouldn't do it, four flat tyres might", are you confident that he and George Bush are on the same wavelength about what constitutes a breach?

RICHARD PEARLE:
If the flat tyre is accidental, that's one thing. If it's deliberate to impede an inspection, that's another. In that case, even one might be a violation, but there are other aspects to this. For example, the resolution includes an undertaking not to interfere with aircraft enforcing UN resolutions. We have had the experience of firing on US and UK aircraft. That will now cease presumably, or there will be material breaches right from the beginning.

KIRSTY WARK:
But it's interesting, because what Dr Blix is saying very clearly there is he will take a list back, perhaps, and sooner rather than later perhaps, of what is going right and wrong. Then, once he has taken that back, there has to be a decision by the Security Council whether or not it's a material breach. If it is a material breach, then the Security Council has got to make a decision about what happens next? The Syrians are just on board, but you heard the deputy ambassador there from Syria, saying that if he doesn't get access to presidential palaces that is not a material breach. Then the wrangling starts again.

RICHARD PEARLE:
The Syrian ambassador is surely entitled to his view on this. I don't believe that the United States is committed to accept whatever the Syrian ambassador has to say. I think every member nation will make its own judgement about whether a material breach has taken place. If, for example, Saddam fires on American aircraft patrolling the no- fly zones, we will know that before Hans Blix .

KIRSTY WARK:
Absolutely, but also, does America, in this state of being very much within the UN family at the moment, do you think it would readily take a decision, perhaps, upset it, maybe a slowness from the Security Council or, perhaps, not as firm as they would like. Do you think there is still a determination that the US could go it alone?

RICHARD PEARLE:
I think the President has made it very clear that either Saddam disarms, or we, together with those who will join us, will disarm him. It's one or the other. If the question is, "Is it only after a vote of the Security Council that the US and others might disarm Saddam?", I think we just have to see what the breaches turn out to be, if any. Let's hope there are none.

KIRSTY WARK:
Talking about good faith, you heard Dr Blix say that he was insisting that the team be independent. We now know that under UNSCOM there were US undercover agents on board. Do you think that will never happen again?

RICHARD PEARLE:
I think some of the best work that was done by UNSCOM was done with the assistance of American intelligence. The inspectors needed help, they needed guidance in order to know where to go and look. I think the American role in the earlier inspections was a very useful one. We will see how well the inspectors do without that kind of assistance.

KIRSTY WARK:
And you're sure that kind of assistance will not be covertly given?

RICHARD PEARLE:
It's not up to me to decide that, but there's a difference between collecting information and disseminating it.

KIRSTY WARK:
Hans Blix says that he, at this stage, believes that what is happening now will not lead to war. In your judgement, is he right?

RICHARD PEARLE:
It all depends on Saddam Hussein. Saddam, by this resolution, is ordered to disarm. The inspectors, Mr Blix's operation, is intended to verify that behaviour. I think we will know very quickly whether Saddam intends to reverse his long-standing practice, and begin to co-operate. He has to make a declaration, he has to make it soon, it must be truthful. If he gives us a false declaration, if he denies that he has any of the things that we have pretty good evidence he has, he will be in violation from the very beginning, as he would be if he continues to fire on our aircraft. So we can debate what would be a conclusive judgement, and what would be speculative. But I think we will know very soon whether Saddam is going to change his behaviour.

KIRSTY WARK:
Thank you very much indeed.

This transcript was produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.