Consensus Is Emerging on Iraq’s Failure, Powell Says

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell asserted Wednesday that a consensus is emerging at the U.N. Security Council that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to come clean on his weapons of mass destruction programs in the arms declaration Baghdad submitted this month. “Our analysis of the Iraqi declaration to this point shows problems with the declaration, gaps, omissions. And all of this is troublesome,” Powell told a news conference after meeting with European Union officials.

“[From] my conversations with the other permanent members of the Security Council,” he said, “I sense that they also see deficiencies” -- although it appeared that the council was not yet ready to speak with one voice.

In its response to the Iraqi arms statement at the United Nations today, the United States is expected to say that Iraq is guilty of “a continuing pattern of material breaches” but that Washington will not regard problems with the declaration as the trigger to launch a military operation, according to a council diplomat.

“Material breach” is the legal term invoked by the United States or the United Nations to justify launching military action -- the so-called trigger for war.

The Bush administration appears to be wary that declaring Iraq in full violation now might weaken its position down the road when, it hopes, evidence will be produced to prove that Baghdad is hiding its deadliest arms in violation of several U.N. resolutions. Then Washington would be more assured of international support for going to war.

The U.S. will make its presentation when the council meets to hear chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed Baradei give their assessments of the Iraqi declaration.

Both are expected to use more careful language than the United States in describing the lingering and still unanswered questions since the previous inspection team completed a comprehensive report in 1999.

The U.S. received strong support Wednesday from Britain, which accused Hussein of lying.

In a statement by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Britain said Baghdad’s claim not to have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or ballistic missiles “will fool nobody.”

“It is clear, even on a preliminary assessment, that it is not the full and complete declaration requested,” he said.

Straw particularly noted that Iraq offered no accounting for “large quantities of nerve agent, chemical precursors and munitions” it is known to have.

“If Saddam persists in this obvious falsehood,” he added, “it will become clear that he has rejected the pathway to peace laid down in Resolution 1441,” which authorizes the resumption of weapons inspections and the disarmament of Iraq.

In New York, a U.N. envoy said the biggest surprise in the almost 12,000-page declaration was that Baghdad made no effort to account for materiel it either is widely known to have or has even admitted acquiring.

“Any straight-thinking member of the council can see what was outstanding in the 1999 inspectors’ report is still outstanding,” the diplomat said. “There are no excuses or pretenses in the declaration to account for the gaps. That’s what surprises us -- that there’s never even any effort to come up with an explanation.”

In somewhat tepid terms and less publicly, France has also acknowledged that there are “gray areas and gaps” in the declaration, which French arms experts found “inconclusive,” according to its U.N. mission.

But the United States still has some work to do in convincing Russia and China, the other two of the five permanent council members, as well as some of the 10 nations with rotating seats, according to U.N. envoys. Several are reserving judgment until after hearing Blix and Baradei.

“China’s position is that we should allow the two international organizations to inspect first because they are on site in Iraq and can see with their own eyes what is there. It is up to them to make the judgment. Then the Security Council will make the decision on whether Iraq is in material breach,” said Meng Xianying, China’s U.N. spokeswoman.

The council is feeling some heat even before Blix makes his statement.

Syria’s angry envoy returned the heavily edited copy of Iraq’s declaration Wednesday and demanded the full text provided to the five permanent council members. “This is an unacceptable discrimination,” Fayssal Mekdad said.

“Syria as a member of the council has the right to receive the report in full. Either we take a full copy or we don’t take anything,” he said.

Powell said Wednesday that Washington was planning to allow the process to play out through the U.N. weapons inspections.

“We are not encouraged that they have gotten the message or will cooperate, based on what we have seen so far in the declaration, but we will stay within the U.N. process,” Powell told reporters.

The U.S. national security team, which mapped out strategy with President Bush at the White House on Wednesday morning, made it clear that the regime in Baghdad was endangering its future.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “I think it is pretty clear from the people who have had a chance to take a look at the documents that they are still trying to find things in them that they expected to be there that weren’t there.

“In terms of weapons of mass destruction, one has to believe they are much stronger” than during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when U.S. troops forced Hussein to withdraw his army from Kuwait, he said.

“So it is a dangerous business and he is engaged in a dangerous game,” Rumsfeld said on CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

Although there is a growing sense of momentum behind military action in Washington, Rumsfeld said the United States will now “take some time” to talk with allies about the Iraqi report and to discuss next steps.

But the defense chief also held out another solution to the issue of Hussein and his arsenal.

“The other option they have is to leave the country. I mean, Saddam Hussein and his family could pick up,” he said. “I mean, if he doesn’t care to give us his weapons of mass destruction, then he’s got the choice of leaving.”

*

Special correspondent William Wallace in London contributed to this report.