UN Resolution 1,284, which seeks the return of weapons inspectors and the lifting of sanctions against Iraq, sets out the framework to resolve this confrontation, writes Niall Andrews
The crisis in the Middle East is a clear indication of the need for the international community to lay down clearly through the United Nations when and how we should intervene militarily in other states.
On a number of recent visits to Iraq, I saw for myself the effects of UN sanctions on the people of that country. Health, education and the infrastructure of the country are devastated.
According to the UN as many as 5,000 children and elderly people are dying each month as a result of the ongoing sanctions. We must not forget that former US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, said those deaths were a "price worth paying" for the end of the existing Iraqi regime.
Nonetheless, the regime remains in place. But the US seems determined to replace Saddam Hussein with yet another, uncertain "friend" in the region.
The people of Iraq would like to see the end of Saddam Hussein but the question remains unanswered as to who would replace him.
I have met the Iraqi opposition which is financed directly by Washington; it is generally accepted they will not be able to form an alternative government.
The real question that has to be answered is: if the broader international community has a problem with the Iraqi President, who should be in the best position to oversee the resolution of any outstanding difficulties? This is the crux of the issue.
Kofi Annan has been outstanding in his handling of the current crisis. He has shown courage and leadership.
Despite the reluctance of the Bush administration to use the United Nations, even as a fig leaf for its attack on Iraq, this organisation commands widespread respect and goodwill throughout the world.
It remains to be seen if the reintroduction of inspectors will allow the UN to continue to play a key role in preventing an attack on Iraq, which would be contrary to international law.
It is not in our collective interests if a country such as the US leads the battle charge on its own without first seeking approval and support for such action from the United Nations.
The present crisis, and it is a real crisis, is going to test to the limit the commitment of the US government to the United Nations.
Even this week the UN has played a central role in securing a letter from the Iraqi government permitting the return of international weapons inspectors. UN inspectors are meeting shortly in Vienna and are ready to move within days. I believe that United Nations Resolution 1,284 sets out the framework to resolve this crisis. This resolution, which was approved by the UN in 1999, allows for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq and for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq, if the work of the weapons inspectors is successful.
The UN Food for Oil programme has certainly ensured that Iraq is paying the full price for the Gulf War in terms of having to pay large-scale reparations.
Baghdad has had to pay 25 per cent in the value of the oil extracted in Iraq under this programme to the War Reparations Commission on Iraq, which is based in Geneva.
I have seen from figures in the past that in some weeks the value of oil extracted from Iraq could reach figures as high as $600 to $700 million a week. This means that the Iraqis at times have had to pay up to $150 million a week in war reparations, which works out at having to pay $1 million an hour in war debt alone.
While having to pay war reparations sticks in the gut of the Iraqi leadership, the Iraqi government should play an active role in guaranteeing that the latest impasse is brought to an end. The Iraqi government could match its words by deeds. It could ensure that weapons inspectors get unfettered access to locations and bases in Iraq, including into the palaces of Saddam Hussein.
If it obstructs the work of the inspectors in any way then it is leaving itself open to US charges of non-compliance with previous UN resolutions. If the Iraqi government plays a game of cat and mouse with the United Nations, as it did before on the issue of weapons inspectors, the Pentagon will use this to justify military action. Iraq is obliged to comply fully with UN resolutions, but so too is there an obligation for all member-states to respect and honour UN resolutions.
One position is certainly clear. If Iraq does not comply with previous UN resolutions, it will lose the international support that is there to avert an escalation in military activities.
The political temperature in the Middle East is already at boiling point. A war in the Middle East runs the serious risk of escalation with no endgame in sight. A war in the Middle East will also increase anti-American sentiment within the Arab world and will be seen by many as a war on Islam by the Christian world.
We must find a peaceful resolution to this issue.
Niall Andrews is a Fianna Fáil MEP and a frequent visitor to Iraq