Peter Carrington: Regime change is all very well, but who will replace Saddam?

There is no doubt that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons. It may well be that it is a country on the road to possessing nuclear weapons – and the means of delivering them. If it is not at present, then I am quite sure that Saddam Hussein will go on trying to do so.

There is no question that the Iraqi regime is thoroughly unpleasant, has been aggressive on two occasions against its neighbours, is brutally oppressive to its own people and, as long as it has these weapons of mass destruction, can in no sense be relied upon not to use them.

We are all equally agreed that Saddam Hussein is a thoroughly unpleasant character, unscrupulous and cruel and, at the same time, a cunning and devious politician. I have met him on two occasions and, to say the least of it, I did not come away with a very favourable impression.

It is equally true that Iraq is in breach of a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions, not least the obligation to accept United Nations weapons inspectors and disarmament, although it must be said – it is not in mitigation – that it is not alone in ignoring UN resolutions. That I would say is common ground.

The question is this: what should we do about it? I am sure that it was right for the United States to go to the United Nations Security Council. I am equally sure that the Prime Minister played a part in achieving that result, and I applaud him for it.

Unilateral action taken by the United States would have caused the greatest possible division – not just in the Arab world but also in Europe and elsewhere. The consequences would have been far-reaching.

The fact that Iraq has now said that the UN weapons inspectors can now return is not in itself enough. We have seen the impediments, prevarications, and obstacles that the Iraqis have put previously in the way of the weapons inspectors. It is fair to assume that Saddam Hussein will use exactly the same delaying tactics again. Indeed, there are already indications of qualifications about what the weapons inspectors can or cannot see.

I believe, therefore, that the United States is right in insisting upon a new UN resolution that will not just place an obligation on the Iraqis to facilitate the work of the inspectors but will also place an obligation on them to disarm and impose a time limit and provisions for taking action if they do not comply.

We have seen too much delay and obstruction. I hope and I believe that such a resolution will gain the support of members of the Security Council.

It may well be that as a result there will be a change of regime in Iraq, which, of course, is much to be hoped for. But if that does not happen, I am not clear what the United States' position is. It speaks of the imperative of a change of regime. But how will it bring that about, and on what basis? If the weapons inspectors have done their job properly and the weapons of mass destruction currently in the hands of the Iraqis have disappeared, Saddam Hussein does not cease to be a threat to the people of Iraq but he ceases to be a threat to his neighbours. It is on the basis of his possession of these weapons that we are now concerned.

On what basis should he be removed? If he were to be removed, who would take his place? Would it be a government appointed by the United States? It is almost impossible to see how a fair, democratic election could take place in Iraq at present. The country is split religiously and racially. There are no obvious opposition leaders.

Those questions need to be asked and answered. One might go further. If Saddam Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction, he is no more dangerous to the rest of the world than are other dictators and despots who oppress their citizens. Robert Mugabe immediately comes to mind. He is no threat to our security, but he is inflicting on his fellow citizens cruelties, discrimination and hardship. So far as I know, no one has yet suggested a compulsory change of his regime by force or otherwise.

Would not such an action on the part of the United States set a precedent that would be very difficult to accept in other cases? It seems to me that these are very important issues, and I hope that the Government will think very carefully before accepting proposals for a change of regime of that kind. But on the issue of the inspectors and a new Security Council resolution, I am wholly on the side of the United States.

Lord Carrington was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1979-82), Secretary of State for Defence (1974) and Secretary General of Nato (1984-88). The above text is based on remarks he made in the House of Lords during Wednesday's debate on Iraq's intention to develop and use weapons of mass destruction