The US and UK governments and press have reported that the Iraqi government has systematically obstructed and undermined the UN's weapons inspections programme.

But the story of Unscom's relationship with the Iraqi government is much more complex than is allowed by US and UK politicians. While a 1998 report to the Security Council by chief weapons inspector Richard Butler does detail specific instances of Iraqi defiance, it suggests that, overall, Baghdad co-operated with inspections.

In February of the same year Raymond Zilinskas, a former member of Unscom, stated that '95% of work proceeds unhindered.'

Iraqi non-compliance often came only after provocation from the US administration. In March 1998 Clinton announced that Iraq had to open its palaces - percieved by Iraqis as symbols of their sovereignty - "anytime, without any conditions, deadlines or excuses". In addition, the Iraqis discovered evidence that American members of Unscom were spying for Washington. After initial vociferous denials the US was forced to concede the truth of the allegations following an embarrassing expose in the Washington Post.

Ignoring the ambiguities of Butler's report, the US took it as a pretext to launch massive air-strikes against Iraq (which continue to this day) without waiting for Security Council backing. That was the last straw for the Iraqis. They are currently refusing to allow inspectors back in the country.

Meanwhile in June 1999, Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector in Iraq, said "It was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed. Iraq no longer possessed any meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it possessed any at all, and the industrial means to produce these agents had either been eliminated or were subject to stringent monitoring. The same was true of Iraq's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. As long as monitoring inspections remained in place, Iraq presented a WMD-based threat to no one."

Contradictory policies: the hypocrisy of the West's obsession with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

US and UK politicians argue that opponents of the sanctions regime have no alternative solution to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's desire to rebuild his arsenal of weapons. But their (current) attitude towards Iraq's weapons of mass destruction does not extend to other countries with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes. US and UK policy on the issue is inconsistent and hypocritical in a number of ways.

Moreover, the UN mandate to disarm Iraq (articulated in UN Resolution 687) was part of a more general mandate to de-scale arms in the Middle East.

Yet the US continues to sell weapons to Iraq's neighbours, Turkey, Israel, Saudia Arabia, Eygpt and Iran, thus contravening the very basis for maintaining sanctions.

Hiroshima after being hit by a Little Boy atom bomb