False Premise Underpins Duelfer Warning of Iraq Weapons Plan, U.N. Officials Say
The council, led by the United States, had decreed that inspections and disarmament of Iraq were to be followed by tough, open-ended monitoring. "It's been a little disturbing," said Demetrius Perricos, chief U.N. weapons inspector. "All the arguments say that when sanctions ended, Saddam Hussein would have had a free hand. By the council's own resolutions that wasn't so."
Years of Security Council resolutions preceding the 2003 U.S.-British invasion mandated that U.N. arms monitors would remain in Iraq once Baghdad's WMD programs were shut down - as Duelfer acknowledged they were in the 1990s. With unusual powers and the best technology, the monitors in this second stage would "prevent Iraq from developing new capabilities," said a blueprint for the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification (OMV) program.
Resolutions also stipulated that U.N. trade sanctions would not be lifted until the ongoing monitoring program was in place - and lifted then only for civilian goods.The Security Council, where Washington has a veto, would decide how long to keep monitoring in place. Perricos said it was expected to last years. "You couldn't have disarmament and stop monitoring afterward," he told The Associated Press.
Official U.S. statements consistently disregarding this follow-up stage in Iraq arms control seem to have had an effect. "Most people don't understand that there was to be a permanent monitoring system in place to deter any return to WMD," said Jean Krasno of the City University of New York, co-author with Sutterlin of the 2003 book "The United Nations and Iraq."Ronald Cleminson, a veteran member of the U.N. commission that oversaw Iraq's disarmament, said he believes U.S. officials intentionally played down U.N. effectiveness and future monitoring plans. Otherwise, "they could not have set up a scenario with which one goes to war," said the retired Canadian intelligence officer
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBI4JCGP0E.html