I think a review of Hans Blix's latest statement to the UN would help the debate over Iraq's compliance significantly. Here's my take on it...
QUOTE(Hans Blix @ Mar 7 2003)
Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by Unscom in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.
A statement meant to: encourage those who feel that Iraq will begin full compliance by suggesting that this may not be like the last time around

and a clear compliment to the US moves to bring the issue back into the spotlight and remind the council of Iraq history of noncompliance with inspections.
QUOTE(Hans Blix @ Mar 7 2003)
Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks, Dr ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad.
Balances the first statement and acknowledges some progress.
QUOTE(Hans Blix @ Mar 7 2003)
Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections...When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for it is above all credible accounts that is needed - or the proscribed items, if they exist. In the last month, Iraq has provided us with the names of many persons, who may be relevant sources of information...In the last month, Iraq has provided us with the names of many persons, who may be relevant sources of information, in particular, persons who took part in various phases of the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons, and proscribed missiles in 1991.
The provision of names prompts two reflections.
The first is that with such detailed information existing regarding those who took part in the unilateral destruction, surely there must also remain records regarding the quantities and other data concerning the various items destroyed.
The second reflection is that with relevant witnesses available it becomes even more important to be able to conduct interviews in modes and locations, which allow us to be confident that the testimony is given without outside influence.
While the Iraqi side seems to have encouraged interviewees not to request the presence of Iraqi officials (so-called minders) or the taping of the interviews, conditions ensuring the absence of undue influences are difficult to attain inside Iraq.
Interviews outside the country might provide such assurance. It is our intention to request such interviews shortly. Nevertheless, despite remaining shortcomings, interviews are useful.
A long quote but one I consider extremely important. A statement that Iraq has yet to account for its WMD even when they clearly have the ability to do so. Also expression of some lingering suspicion with the process of interviews.
QUOTE(Hans Blix @ Mar 7 2003)
Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.
Iraq is expected to assist in the development of credible ways to conduct random checks of ground transportation.
Inspectors are also engaged in examining Iraq's programme for Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). A number of sites have been inspected with data being collected to assess the range and other capabilities of the various models found. Inspections are continuing in this area.
There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground. Iraq should provide information on any underground structure suitable for the production or storage of WMD.
During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations.
No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.
The first of the responses to the debate in the council, meant to disparage if not outright deny the claims of Sec. Powell.
QUOTE(Hans Blix @ Mar 7 2003)
I should add that, both for the monitoring of ground transportation and for the inspection of underground facilities, we would need to increase our staff in Iraq. I am not talking about a doubling of the staff. I would rather have twice the amount of high quality information about sites to inspect than twice the number of expert inspectors to send.
A second response to the Council members, this time a reference to the French suggestion that inspection be doubled.
QUOTE(Hans Blix @ Mar 7 2003)
On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps, which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you. As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament - indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s.
We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed.
Criticizing Iraq further for past lack of cooperation and disparaging claims that the Al Samoud 2 missiles are legal. Also a unfavorable reference to the belittling of the fact that theses mislles are being destroyed.
QUOTE(Hans Blix @ Mar 7 2003)
More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many have been found to restate what Iraq had already declared, some will require further study and discussion.
There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991.
A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site.
It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced.
In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on and may yield results.
An update on the highly publicized chemical/bioloical weapons issue. Expressing both doubt and hopes about recent information from Iraq.
QUOTE(Hans Blix @ Mar 7 2003)
One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.
This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.
Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated immediately, unconditionally and actively - with Unmovic, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002).
The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:
The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance...While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions.
It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
Full text: Blix briefingA wrap-up which paints the issue as Blix sees it. Iraq is still in noncompliance. There has been some progress but it is largely overshadowed by continuing problems. Iraq could shorten the process immensely by cooperating fully, but they have refused to as of today.