UNITED NATIONS, Jan 27 (Reuters) - Following are frequently asked questions about a United Nations report to be released on Monday and its implications for war in Iraq:
WHAT HAPPENS THIS WEEK? The two chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei brief the U.N. Security Council on Monday, 60 days after the current round of inspections began. President George W. Bush will speak on Iraq in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, a day before the Security Council discusses the report. Bush meets British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his closest ally, at Camp David on Friday to discuss strategy.
WHAT HAVE THE INSPECTORS SAID? Hans Blix, the executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, known as UNMOVIC, has criticized Iraq's cooperation: gaps missing in documentation about what happened to Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stock; difficulties in interviewing scientists without Iraqi minders; and Iraq's balking at flying U-2 spy planes over all parts of the country. ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has said he needs more time to investigate. Neither disarmament official has corroborated U.S. allegations that Iraq has rebuilt its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
WOULD THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL BACK A WAR? Not right now, according to France, Russia, China, Germany and other nations in the 15-member body. Most say inspections should be allowed to continue for weeks, if not months. Some nations fear that a U.S. invasion schedule is being tied to when weather in Iraq is best for the U.S. military. A minimum of nine votes and no veto from permanent members --the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China-- are necessary for a resolution. At the moment, diplomats say the nine votes aren't there.
IS A RESOLUTION BACKING FORCE REQUIRED? No. France and others lost that argument in arduous negotiations over resolution 1441, adopted by the Security Council on Nov. 8, although many nations still prefer a direct authorization by the council. The heart of the Nov. 8 resolution speaks of a "further material breach" of past U.N. demands, legal language that voids the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire and can justify a new war. The resolution says the Security Council has to "assess" a material breach, which would include "false statements and omissions" in Iraq's arms declarations as well as a failure by Iraq to comply with and cooperate in implementing the resolution. The United States has already declared a "further material breach" but most council members want the inspectors to verify any serious violations and are reluctant to cut short inspections, which began 60 days ago after a four-year hiatus.
WHAT IS THE U.S. POSITION? U.S. officials had been expected to continue making the case for starting a military campaign soon, arguing that Iraq has already violated the resolution, failed to cooperate actively with inspectors and left out key data in its Dec. 7 12,000-page arms declaration. But the Bush administration may try to soothe tensions in the Security Council by delaying for a few weeks any decision to attack.
WHAT ARE THE POSITIONS OF OTHER SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS? French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder have said that war should be avoided. "Any decision belongs to the Security Council and the Security Council alone, which will address the issue after having examined the latest inspectors' report," Chirac said. Permanent council members Russia and China have sided with France. Germany is a nonpermanent members and just began a two-year term. Britain has supported U.S. war plans and the military build-up in the Gulf region but also wants inspectors to have more time.
WHAT DOES THE PUBLIC THINK? Polls show that most people in the United States prefer nonmilitary options to unseat Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. U.S. officials, however, expect that Americans will rally around the president should he decide to go to war, depending on how long a conflict lasts. Outside of the United States, public opinion, especially in nearly every European nation, is running strongly against war. Critics say the United States has failed to come forward with proof that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction.
