Britain and the United States used out-of-date information to justify air strikes on Iraq, while weapons inspections centred on sites intended to provoke the Iraqis, a former weapons inspector said yesterday.
Data on which inspections were based was often ''months, maybe years old'', said Mr Scott Ritter, an American former member of the United Nations Special Commission (Unscom).
''I can guarantee you that every piece of information used to support this most recent inspection was of a dated nature,'' he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
Sites for inspection were often chosen not for disarmament reasons, but to provoke the Iraqis, he said.
Mr Ritter blamed the United States for that provocation, and said Unscom chief weapons inspector Richard Butler, an Australian, was also guilty for complying with American pressure.
''I think that both bear responsibility,'' he said.
Mr Butler had ''allowed the United States to manipulate the work of Unscom in such a fashion as to justify an air strike''.
The problem was not deadlines for inspection, but manipulation of the process so it became a ''tool to justify military action'', Mr Ritter added. ''I believe this inspection was rushed through and the sites chosen weren't chosen for disarmament reasons but rather to be provocative in nature.''
The quality of information on which inspection requests were justified had been ''haunting'' Unscom, he said.
If Britain and the US had been serious about arms control, the inspectors should have been given time to develop ''new sources of information'', Mr Ritter added.
Meanwhile, Russia's ambassador to Britain, withdrawn last week in protest at the attacks on Iraq, is to be reinstated ''within the next few days'', the Foreign Office confirmed yesterday.
The move came after a phone call yesterday between Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and his Russian counterpart Igor Ivanov.
Ambassador Yuri Fokine was withdrawn from the embassy in London last Friday as the joint UK and American bombardment of Saddam Hussein's regime intensified.
A statement issued in Moscow said that Mr Fokine should return as soon as possible.
President Boris Yeltsin denounced the attacks and demanded an immediate halt to the strikes on a country which has traditionally been a Russian ally.
Mr Fokine will now return to the UK after a ''warm and friendly conversation'' between Mr Cook and Mr Ivanov, the FO said.
Russia announced on Tuesday that its ambassador to the US, who was also recalled last week when the military strikes began, will return. He was expected back in Washington yesterday.
Tensions in the Middle East have increased after Iraq ordered the United Nations to a cancel a scheduled flight of military observers who monitor the ceasefire and demilitarised zone on the border with Kuwait.
No explanation was given for Baghdad's decision but a UN official said he hoped the measure was temporary and that the UN is pursuing the matter with Iraq.
The flight had been scheduled to carry members of the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission, or Unikom, from Amman, Jordan, to Habaniyya air base outside Baghdad.
Meanwhile, UN humanitarian workers have resumed their duties after returning from Jordan. They were evacuated last week during the bombing campaign.
Their first task will be to judge the impact of the bombing campaign on the UN-approved oil-for-food programme and other international efforts to help the 22 million Iraqis, said UN officials.
As the clear-up operation continues, Iraq warned that it would not forgive Kuwait for allowing the US and Britain to use its military bases to mount last week's strikes.
Downing Street yesterday confirmed that senior members of the Cabinet had contacted the BBC to express their ''disquiet'' at some of its coverage of the Iraq conflict.
Mr Cook, Defence Secretary George Robertson and the Prime Minister's official spokesman have expressed their concern over a lack of ''health warnings'' on some of the BBC's reports.
They feel that the corporation failed to make clear to viewers that its reports from Baghdad were subject to Iraqi censorship.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article