When Iraqi guards refused to allow UN weapons inspectors into the Al-Dhamia branch of the ruling Baath Party in Baghdad last week, the world held its collective breath in anticipation of a new crisis between Iraq and the United Nations. It was thought the latest showdown would inevitably go off the boil, triggering the much talked about "no-notice" military strike that the United States and Britain threatened Iraq with following the last-minute settlement that defused November's stand-off. Punitive Anglo-American action has not yet been taken but Iraq's most recent show of defiance is another example of the rocky relationship between Iraq and the United Nations' Special Commission (UNSCOM) whose job it is to dismantle Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction. The incident began when Baghdad announced that the Baath Party's offices were off-limits to the inspectors who were conducting one of their surprise visits to sites they suspect are being used as hiding places for documents or materials connected to Iraq's banned weapons programmes. The inspectors turned back and Latif Jassim, a senior Baath Party member, said they would be sent away if they showed up again at the building. "The answer will be the same. This is a party. Political parties are not included (in the inspections)," Jassim told reporters a day later. The incident, the most serious since the inspectors returned to work last month, prompted an expectedly quick condemnation from UNSCOM chairman Richard Butler who described it as "very serious". Although Butler stopped short of threatening to pull back his teams from Iraq, his comments were immediately echoed in Washington and London. US Defence Secretary William Cohen and British Foreign Office Minister Derek Fatchett reminded Iraq that they were ready to act if necessary. Preventing UNSCOM inspectors from entering the Baath Party building was but another challenge by Baghdad to the United Nations authority. The incident thwarted efforts by UNSCOM to search the offices of President Saddam Hussein's ruling party, considered one of the key pillars of his regime. Saddam had promised to open all sites in Iraq, including his presidential palaces, for inspections by the UN experts, which they did in March. Why, then, did he do an about-face this time around? Was he trying to create another confrontation to test the will of the international community? On 31 October, Saddam did just that, halting cooperation with UN inspectors until the Security Council presented a timetable to lift its eight-year sanctions which have devastated Iraq's economy. Two weeks later, he backed down when the United States and Britain assembled a huge force in the Gulf and threatened to attack Iraq if Saddam refused to resume cooperation with the inspectors. Saddam promised full cooperation with UNSCOM in the hope that he would be rewarded with a comprehensive review which would eventually lead to the end of the sanctions. This particular test of American and British resolve came at a time when Washington and London openly declared their intention to cooperate with Iraqi opposition groups seeking political change in Iraq. Soon after the two countries announced their new positions, senior American and British officials began discussions with Iraqi dissidents on how to forge a unified opposition that could topple Saddam. To Saddam, it looked as if the Clinton administration was telling him this: whether or not he cooperates with UNSCOM, he is a doomed man. At least that is the way his deputy, Taha Yassin Ramadan, saw it when he said Iraq was expecting an American attack "if not today, tomorrow, and if not tomorrow, the day after." But while Saddam demonstrated that he can still challenge the inspectors, the Clinton administration seemed unwilling to carry out its threat to bomb Iraq in case of a new violation. "We intend to wait until the completion of his [Butler's] inspections and that of his team before coming to any conclusion about the nature of the lack of cooperation on the part of Saddam Hussein," said Cohen. In the meantime, Saddam will wait for Butler's report to the Security Council which will assess Iraq's cooperation with UNSCOM ever since the inspectors returned to work in November. If the report is negative, and many observers believe it will be, it can only be a step backward for Saddam who had pinned high hopes on a comprehensive review establishing that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction, thus paving the way for lifting the sanctions. What will be Saddam's next move? Unlike previous stand-offs, the Iraqi leader has little room to manoeuvre. He may choose another confrontation on terms of access for the weapons inspectors or he may try his luck and intentionally create a crisis with a politically crippled American president. Whatever he decides, he will undoubtedly be confronted with American resolve to force him to comply with the UN resolutions. Washington could be finally getting tired of Saddam's antics and there is every reason to believe that the price for one more misstep by Saddam will be dozens of US cruise missiles striking Iraqi weapons installations. US Army Chief of Staff Gen Dennis Reimer was perhaps thinking out loud when he said recently that US forces ready to go to the Gulf have an attitude. "Let us do it," Reimer said, "and get it over with."
