Q&A: Iraq briefing

Q&A: Iraq briefing

In the first of a series of regular briefings, BBC News Online answers key questions about current issues in the Iraq crisis.

Today we look at the implications of France and Russia's announcement that they will use their veto to block any UN resolution authorising war against Iraq, and why Iraq might be planning to blow up its own oilfields.

What happens if a veto is used?

There will be, put simply, no resolution. A veto by any of the permanent five members of the Security Council (US, UK, Russia, France and China) will block a resolution which needs nine of the 15 votes and no vetoes to get through.

There are five permanent members because they were the big powers when the UN was set up after World War II. They took steps to give themselves special powers. The 10 other members are elected on a rotating basis by other states to represent different areas of the world.

What therefore is the so-called "moral majority"?

If you get nine votes but are blocked by a veto or vetoes, you can claim a so-called technical or "moral majority". It has no legal status but in this instance it would provide political cover for UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. He would claim that the majority was "unreasonably" blocked.

Countries which voted against a resolution or which vetoed it would say that there is nothing moral about it and nothing reasonable about ignoring it.

Would war be illegal without a clear UN mandate?

The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that he thinks it would break the UN charter. It is his job after all to defend the UN's role. The US and UK, on the other hand, say that there is enough authority in previous resolutions, notably the last one, 1441, which said that if Iraq did not cooperate it could face "serious consequences." Lawyers do not agree among themselves on this.

The British and Americans also point to what happened in Kosovo in 1999 as a way of justifying action. That war was waged by Nato and bypassed the UN altogether as Russia had made it clear it would use its veto.

US officials have said Iraqi forces appear to be moving explosives to oilfields in the north. Why would Iraq destroy its own oil wells?

In 1991 Iraq blew up equipment in the Kuwait oilfields as its forces retreated and the fear is that, faced with defeat, Saddam Hussein would engage in a scorched earth policy.

He might feel that this would both slow down the opposing forces and deny them the fruits of victory though of course the fires can be put out and the wells repaired.