France rejects British deadline for disarmament

France and Britain clashed openly yesterday at the UN Security Council as the French foreign minister rejected a British proposal to give Saddam Hussein a deadline to disarm, calling it a "pretext for war".

France: Unequivocally took on the mantle of leader of the "peace party", threatening to use its veto and attacking the core logic of President George Bush's arguments for war.

Although Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, called for an emergency summit of heads of state and government to try to find a settlement, he made it clear that Paris was now prepared for a head-on confrontation with the United States and Britain.

M. de Villepin went further than ever before in threatening to veto any resolution which provided "a pretext for war". With Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, looking on stony-faced, M. de Villepin assailed the logic of US policy in the Gulf. "Significant elements of a real disarmament [in Iraq] can now be seen," he said.

To insist on "regime change" in Baghdad as the start of a process of political transformation in the Middle East was fatally flawed, he said. "Force is not the way to impose democracy."

He added said military force might be able to settle the immediate problem in Iraq but it would be a "false" and dangerous model for the solution of other problems, such as North Korea.

M. de Villepin said France rejected the British idea for a short deadline and a clear ultimatum to Baghdad, but he said Paris could accept a shortening of its own proposed four-month timetable for "clear progress" in Iraq.

Russia: Although less forceful than M. de Villepin, Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, welcomed the latest report by the weapons inspectors as proof that military action was unnecessary and wrong. "For the first time in many years in Iraq, there is a real process of disarmament going on," he said. "We have been able to achieve essential progress in the implementation of resolution 1441."

It was clear Iraq could improve its co-operation, but the US could not claim to be standard-bearers of an "absolute truth" about the threat from Baghdad, he said. Without such an absolute truth, war could not be justified.

Germany: Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, has been steadfastly opposed to military force. Baghdad's co-operation with the weapons inspectors, he said, could have been earlier and more willing. But, he stressed, Iraq's latest moves to disarm showed "peaceful disarmament is possible and there is a real alternative to war". He said Germany saw no need for a second resolution that might trigger the use of force.

China: Hitherto seen as a lukewarm opponent of force, it echoed Germany's reluctance to vote on a second resolution. Tang Jiaxuan, China's Foreign Minister, urged Iraq to step up its co-operation "on substance", but said China saw no reason "to close the door to peace". He added: "As long as we stick to the road of political settlement, the goal of destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could still be achieved."

America: Mr Powell gave a low-key speech, arguing President Saddam had exhausted his last chance and was in clear breach of resolution 1441. "Iraq is once more moving down the path to weapons of mass destruction," he said. "He has not changed."

Britain: The most passionate casewas voiced by Mr Straw, who made four direct appeals to his French counterpart, who he addressed ­ contrary to UN etiquette ­ as "Dominique". Mr Straw said any delay now was "the strategy of impotence".

Leaning towards M. de Villepin, Mr Straw said: "With respect to you, my good friend. The strong outside pressure is, and let's be blunt about this, the presence of over 200,000 US and UK young men and young women willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of the United Nations. There is only one possible, sensible conclusion we can draw. We have to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein, we have to put this man to the test. The Iraqis have the answer book already ... it may take time to fabricate further falsehoods, but the truth takes only seconds to tell."

Copies of the amended draft of the second resolution, which sets 17 March as the deadline for Iraq to comply fully with the UN resolutions, were then distributed.

Only Spain and Bulgaria aligned themselves unconditionally with Britain.

Later, the Chilean envoy, Cristian Maquieira, opposed the draft. He said: "We feel there should be dates and times compatible with the task requested, and this is not enough time.

Iraq reacted with relief to the report and indicated it may have gained vital time in delaying war. Iraqi officials insisted it had been given a "clean bill of health'' on its alleged nuclear programme, and the same could be achieved on the chemical and biological side if more time was allowed for inspections.

THE RESOLUTION

The Security Council

1. Reaffirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1441 (2002);

2. Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region;

3. Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before March 17, 2003, the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to Unmovic and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items;

4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.