Russia remains sceptical about the justification for a war with Iraq. France underlined the role of the United Nations Security Council in settling the Iraq issue, while German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder announced that he would not commit his country's troops to a war against Iraq.

The new round of consultations came shortly after strikes on Thursday by US and British warplanes against an air defence installation in the west of Iraq.

Regarding the timing of the raid, which was followed by a Bush-Blair summit on Saturday, there was speculation that the assault had been launched to pave the way for special forces helicopters to fly into Iraq in order to locate Scud missile sites, a prelude to a US-led attack.

Last week's bombing by US and British aircraft was based on satellite photos which revealed new construction work "at the sites linked in the past to Iraq's development of nuclear weapons" asserted the Pentagon.

After examining the pictures, UN experts said that the conclusions to be drawn as to the purpose of the new buildings are still open to speculation.

Demonstrating his country's special relationship with the United States, Blair unequivocally declared Friday that Britain is ready to pay "a blood price" and was standing firmly alongside the United States.

Dismissing the lack of support for military action by the United Nations, Blair said:

"While UN support for action was desirable, the procedures of the UN must not be allowed to stand in the way of the objective of removing Saddam's weapons."

Bush, meanwhile, declared that "the US could do the job on its own if need be."

There are, however, problems with the Bush administration's justification for launching a war against Iraq.

Iraq is currently in violation of UN Security Council's resolutions requiring Iraq's full co-operation with UN inspectors and ensuring that its weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and facilities for manufacturing such weapons are destroyed.

However, the tension regarding access for UN inspectors and possible Iraqi procurement of weapons of mass destruction has always been an issue involving the Iraqi Government and the UN, not an impasse between Iraq and the United States.

UN Security Council Resolution 687, the most detailed in the world body's history, does not mention military enforcement mechanisms, which were also absent in subsequent resolutions of the Security Council.

As is normally the case when governments violate all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about the enforcement of its resolutions is a matter for the UN Security Council as a whole, not for any one member of the council.

The failure to respect UN protocol has ensured that there is no broad base of world opinion behind a US pre-emptive military strike against Iraq.

On Thursday the foreign ministers of 20 Arab nations made a declaration to stand by Iraq.

The United States' position on a war against Iraq is clear: Saddam should be removed. But the timing for any operation does lie in the hands of the United States.

That seems to be the privilege of the powerful. With the necessary military might at his disposal, Bush would seem to be saying that military force is the preferred tool of the powerful - undeterred by the rules and procedures of international law and convention, driven instead by the winds of US self-interest.

If the unprecedentedly broad right within the Bush administration goes ahead with pre-emptive military action the risk would be to produce dangerous uncertainties, instead of a safer world.

Furthermore, it is likely to encourage other states to assert their own particular perception of order in a similar way.

In order to resolve the Iraq issue, it is essential that diplomacy be used to compel Iraq to allow the UN weapon inspectors to return.

The destructive capacity of guns and bombs is unquestionable, but they are not always the right and just answer.

(China Daily September 9, 2002)