After watching the rather tense debate following the weapons inspectors' reports to the UN Security Council o­n Friday, March 7, it seems to me that the current controversy is crystallisd in the words of French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin when he asked: "Since we already have 'active co-operation' from Iraq, what is the logic of going to war now?"

These words were uttered during a press conference, called to rebut UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw's thumping speech during which Straw loudly retorted Dominique's earlier speech in the Council over certain issues, calling the latter repeatedly by name "Dominique".

Among the issues, Straw took exception to was Dominique's claim that recent increase in co-operation from Iraq was primarily a result of diplomatic efforts from international bodies including the Arab League, OIC, NAM etc, and mentioned the presence of American and British forces as o­nly a supporting factor. Straw said the reverse was true, that it was the 200,000-over US and UK soldiers whose lives were put o­n line to uphold the UN resolution that has forced Iraq's hand.

Straw also repudiated Dominique's assertion that the choice before the UN was whether to disarm Iraq through war or through peace. Straw said the decision of was up to Saddam, not the UN. Straw also rejected Dominique's suggestion that the UK resolution was automatic war, saying war was never automatic, but conditional.

Straw's stirring speech was obviously making a considerable impact o­n the audience, judging from the applause he received - the o­nly applause during Council meeting. Sensing that Straw might be gaining ground, Dominique quickly called a press conference during which he tried to re-enforce his case by questioning the logic of starting a war during "active co-operation" from Iraq.

Now, let us take a close look at the central issue raised by Dominique - Iraq's "active co-operation".

It is true that there has been disarmament in substance this time when Iraq began destroying its al-Samoud II missiles. But these missiles are o­nly peripheral to the core issue of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons. The fact remains that Saddam's WMD are still intact, and he has not made that strategic political decision to disarm, as evident from the fact that Iraq has not revealed the storage of WMD or given evidence of the production or destruction of such weapons.

Knowing Saddam's record, no o­ne should be so naive as to believe that his recent compliance with some of UN inspectors' request was prompted by diplomatic pressure as asserted by Dominique. If Saddam can be bent by diplomacy, UN need not have to pass a dozen resolutions in the past 12 years in unsuccessful attempts to disarm Iraq. In fact, not even the threat of force could move Saddam, as these UN resolutions were all armed with implicit authority to use force and all these efforts have been proved to be futile.

Not even the latest Resolution l44l, which is for all practical purposes an ultimatum to war, could move Saddam to disarm.

So far, Saddam has o­nly conceded to co-operate (in piecemeal fashion) with UN inspectors o­n inspection procedure but not o­n disarmament substance, even when he is threatened with imminent invasion by a quarter of a million soldiers amassed o­n Iraq's borders and armed with the most advance military technology the world has ever seen.

If US were to pull back its forces, as it would have to if no decision o­n war is taken soon, can you imagine what will happen to Dominique's rose garden where he claimed that "our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction"? (Quoted from Dominique's speech in the Council). Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect then that this rose garden will soon be turned into a tortuous weed path?

With regard to Iraq's demolition of some of its missiles, pacifists in the like of France may herald such a step as proof that Saddam is moving towards complying with UN resolutions, vindicating their faith in disarming Saddam peacefully.

However, to the shrewd observer, it presents a different picture. Saddam's recent act to dither with his missiles and to start to dismantle some of them at this last hour was seen as a superb tactical move to disable the US war plan. As can be seen, it has already succeeded in deepening the fault lines and weakened US position in the UN Security Council. Soon, the anti-war movement around the world would be further inflamed to work in Saddam's favour.

Saddam escaped termination in the last Gulf war. Can he survive this time? The answer lies in the resolve of the United States of America.