Arab States See Resolution As Way to Avoid War

Soon after the UN Security Council unanimously voted its tough resolution to disarm Iraq, Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, called three Arab foreign ministers urging them to explain to Baghdad that this was its final opportunity to get rid of its deadly weapons peacefully.

He also appeared on several Arab satellite television stations to wish Muslims a happy Ramadan, the holy month that started last week, and explain that the resolution was a real, if final, opportunity for Iraq to disarm peacefully. He said Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, was not likely to comply but if he did that would change the situation.

His words appeared designed to secure the support of the 22-member Arab League, which met on Sunday in Cairo, and to facilitate the interpretation Arab rulers are putting on the UN decision.

Opposed to a US military campaign to topple the Iraqi regime and under pressure from an increasingly anti-American public opinion, Arab officials stressed at the weekend that the UN resolution was the best guarantee against war and did not authorise the US to launch military action.

The message was being sent to their people as much as to Iraq, which came under pressure in Cairo to comply with UN demands.

On Saturday, Iraqi newspapers were lashing out against the UN vote. On Sunday, however, the tone changed, with the official press praising the international community for opting for diplomacy rather than war and defeating US designs. Iraq seemed more willing to accept the resolution as interpreted by its Arab friends.

Farouq al-Shara, Syrian foreign minister, said the resolution "has pushed the phantom of war into the distance for several weeks or several months. I am satisfied with that. Our goal is to spare Iraq and the region from a military strike. This was a principle which we were not prepared to abandon in any form".

He said Syria had voted for the resolution after receiving a letter from Mr Powell assuring it that the UN text did not include "what can be used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq".

However, Arab officials said that the demands on Iraq in resolution 1441 were so explicit that it was likely to be a formality for the US to obtain a second Security Council vote authorising the use of force in case of non-compliance.

In order to win approval from all 15 members of the Security Council, particularly the veto-wielding French, Russians and Chinese, the resolution was written in a way that allows different interpretations.

It warned Iraq of serious consequences if it defies the UN. It says violations by Iraq must be reported to and evaluated by the Council but it does not require the US to seek a new resolution before it wages a military campaign.

Both US and UK officials have said that war could be launched without further authorisation if Iraq breaches its obligations.

The differences in interpretation may not be important if Mr Hussein's non-compliance is obvious. Having given Iraq a last chance to disarm, all five permanent members of the Council know that failure to comply will lead to military action.

But diplomats say the ambiguities could shatter the unanimity of the Council if Iraq plays by the rules for a while and inspectors report 80 per cent compliance.

"If Iraq makes sufficient progress most members of the Security Council will want to give the UN arms inspectors more time," says a senior Arab diplomat. "The expectation is that Iraq will not comply fully but they will comply enough to be able to stall."