Wednesday 1 March 2000

Starting at UNMOVIC. First, report to the SG (Secretary-General) – ten minutes at 9.45. It was supposed to be what they call a ‘photo opportunity’, but there were no photographers. There was a chat on substance.

Thereafter a meeting with all staff remaining from UNSCOM. Many have left but there are some thirty or so. The professionals have mostly employment contracts and salaries from the governments that have seconded them, and they receive per diems from the UN – some 350 dollars a day. No wonder that some take suggestions from their governments. I told them all that I wanted a clear organizational set-up, with clear lines of command and responsibility. That we would have staff on UN contracts and pay – and UN loyalty. There was no automatic transfer. Candidates from the outside would be invited to compete. There would be as broad a geographic representation as possible. However, the present arrangements would be prolonged for each who so wished at any rate until 15 April, when the Security Council has approved the organizational plan.

After my addressing the staff, I went to see the President of the Security Council, this month the Ambassador of Bangladesh. He appreciated that I promised to keep the non-P5 informed of events. He evidently favoured a conciliatory approach to the Iraqis and underlined that one should try to encourage them to come along … He did not deviate, however, from the Security Council line that Iraq must not have any weapons of mass destruction and that it must accept unrestricted inspections.

After my talk with the President there was the press conference, which was what I had worried most about. Even if you know what you say and express it reasonably well, you rarely know what is going to come out. However, there is some safety in numbers. They cannot ask too many follow-up questions and there is a certain decorum. I succeeded in planting some lines that I had thought out in advance, like ‘Iraq tends to look at inspections as a penalty which it wants to minimize. It should see them as an opportunity which they should maximize.’ If Iraq states something about its WMD capacity no one believes them, but if the Commission after extensive investigation and inspection says something it may well be believed and acted upon.

I said that I was fully aware of the terrible situation of the Iraqi people and pointed to the improvements that Res. 1284 brings through easing of imports. The best way, however, was through cooperation with UNMOVIC and a suspension and eventual lifting of sanctions.

I referred to intelligence and said that it was useful but had to be examined critically. There was a good deal of disinformation, too. It should be largely a one-way traffic. We could not completely protect ourselves from infiltration (no one could) but if I discovered anyone working for an outside agency, I would fire him …

The echoes the day after were reasonably good all over. Media will be generally aware of how we operate, and twisted allegations may not fly.

Thursday 2 March 2000

I had a visit from the Dutch Ambassador who is also the chairman of the sanctions committee for Iraq. They are on the Security Council, so they are quite important to me. Later, I received US assistant secretary of state Bob Einhorn, who had seen me in Stockholm and whom I know well. He brought an ambassador dealing with Iraq in the US mission (Cunningham?). They offered all kinds of support and cooperation, did not lament that the UNSCOM deputy executive chairman Duelfer had resigned.

Friday 3 March 2000

I got up rather tired because Yirka Emerson (student friend from my 1955 Columbia University days) had invited me for theatre and supper the evening before and I had only fallen asleep around 1 a.m. Nevertheless, I gave a ‘morning prayer’ at the Swedish mission as promised. Mostly people I did not know.

I saw the ambassador of Bahrein as agreed in the Indonesian lounge. I was able to tell him that he was the first ambassador I called on and I wanted to tell him quite informally that we were considering what should be our staging area for flights into Baghdad and that Bahrein still seemed very practical and that there was a new building built for the purpose. However, it was not a formal request. He said that Bahrein had been quite embarrassed by the so-called Gateway (US marine base) in which UN inspectors were briefed by US–UK–Australia before going into Iraq and – what was even worse – were debriefed as they came out. I told him that I had made it clear that this had to stop. I have the impression that the big boys have simply taken Bahrein for granted and told them what to do. This is not the way to treat anybody if you want to have real cooperation. He said it might be a good idea for me to visit them separately. I agreed but said there might be problems if I travel to the Middle East but do not seek to go to Iraq. We agreed that I could write him an informal letter in which I raise the issue without any request. Before we get to the Security Council with the organizational structure I should have the matter in hand, however.

Next was Hans Dahlgren, ambassador of Sweden. We talked substance for a while. Thereafter my employment conditions.

And work today? I had two very expert journalists from Reuters in my office in the morning. They knew much more about UNSCOM than I do. They also knew the difficult questions. However, I don’t think I was snared and we parted in a friendly way. After Reuters I had a TV interview by a young woman from Abu Dhabi. Questions were quite competent and so were the answers – I think.

Only journalists today? No, no. The German ambassador came and offered full cooperation and support. Good. He also hoped that I would rehire a couple of Germans who served UNSCOM and put them on UN contracts. I said I had nothing against rehiring very experienced staff, but they would have to compete with outside applicants. He had no problems with that.

Then came, guess who? Yes, US ambassador Holbrooke, for a courtesy call. It is rumoured that he keeps his hands totally off Iraq because it is not a winner. He is said to leave that millstone around the neck of Mme Albright and to concentrate on things that might make him Secretary of State in a next administration. Whatever the truth of this he was so sleepy that he yawned every two minutes. His questions, like his demeanour, were somewhat brutish. Do you have a budget? Why do the Iraqis not cooperate? When can you send inspectors, if they allow it? By August. OK – first of August or fifteenth? However, he was extremely friendly and supportive. I had his full and enthusiastic support.

At the end of the day, I sat down with my own boys and discussed their new organization and some other matters. And I have now had a plate of New England clam chowder and a couple of cheese sandwiches in my kitchenette. Tomorrow meeting with the staff to discuss what they should do apart from playing computer games. Since no inspections are going out and no inspection reports are coming in there are some limitations on the work. But there is a good deal that can usefully be done even while we are planning the new organization, like procedures for hiring people, programmes for training. Procedures for the analysis of samples, etc.

Tuesday 7 March 2000 at 20.45

Home by eight. Long days and I do not wish them to be otherwise. I have no distractions and need none. I cannot even bring myself to put in motion a search for an apartment.

Today I started with a staff meeting. They were used to ‘democratic’ Swedish-type ‘morning prayers’ to which all staff, secretaries and all, were invited. I have never seen the merit in having all clerical staff present during discussions that are uninteresting to most of them. So, I invited the professional staff – as distinct from what in the UN is called general staff. It nevertheless filled the so-called bunker – a security-screened room without window and air. I told them that I was still concentrating on the organizational plan, but I was also conscious of the fact that they need some directives as to what they should do. I mentioned a number of things that I thought would be useful to get done in this transitional period. In the main, however, I suggested that they might themselves know best what might be useful, and they could submit such proposals to me. If, on the other hand, someone did not see anything useful that could be done, perhaps it would be better to leave. No one winced at that. Nor did I receive any resignation. While about two-thirds of the professional staff have already abandoned the organization, the third that remains largely seems interested in staying and several of the states from which they come urge me to keep them. I hope this third is not the least competent. In fact, they are a mixed lot with several extremely experienced whom it would be difficult to replace.

The Chinese ambassador visited me in the morning. He did not have much of a message, except that they would have some candidates. I said that was welcome and asked that they should supply CVs – not just professions and institutions from where they came.

In the afternoon the French ambassador, Dejammet, came. He was ‘softer’ than the Russians and the Chinese. The result of the sanctions was terrible, and Iraq must be given some way to have them lifted. We must meet them, not just whip them. I said I thought the new resolution opened the road for suspension of sanctions in return for cooperation and progress on key disarmament issues. However, I would not go for cosmetic inspections. I also said my reading of the resolution was that the Security Council was really united in the view that Iraq must not have weapons of mass destruction and in the view that inspections must be unrestricted.

I think the French have persuaded themselves that it will be impossible to discover all the hidden pieces in Iraq and have concluded that it is better to go over to monitoring to try to ensure that nothing ugly grows up. If the Security Council will decide this, OK, but for the moment the resolution orders us still to look for hidden pieces and I do not wish to delude anyone that everything has been found.

Wednesday 8 March 2000

Yet another day. Three briefings by staff. Rather interesting and probably good for the morale of staff that some interest is shown in what they do. The first briefing was about missiles in Iraq. (I was told that it took five months before Richard Butler agreed to listen to a similar brief …) Most of the missile technology came from the Soviet Union: Scuds. Practically all are accounted for, but little is known about the copies which were produced in Iraq. Later briefing on inspections of sites that are not suspected but which could possibly lend themselves to the production of weapons or parts of weapons. They are mostly identified from satellite photography. Lastly a briefing on the control of Iraq’s import. They need licence from the UN sanctions committee and everything they import – except that which they buy with the proceeds of smuggled oil – is subject to inspection by us or the IAEA. Indeed, a heavy apparatus …

Thursday 9 March 2000

The days are interesting. An example: the Secretary-General nominated seventeen members to the College of Commissioners that is to ‘give me advice and guidance’. An Arab newspaper commented that the SG had not appointed a single member from an Arab country, because the US was opposed to having any Arabs in it. To my knowledge the SG would have liked very much to have a commissioner from an Arab country, but no such country wants to have anyone on the commission, because the whole UNMOVIC is seen as punishing an Arab brother country – Iraq. Nor do these countries want to have any staff in my outfit although we would like to have them. Indeed, it would be useful to have Arab-speaking inspectors! As far as I know the US would have welcomed an Arab representative on the college …

I had one long briefing today on chemical weapons and one on the use of sensors and air sampling and analysis. They have done a good deal here, but they have not reached the bottom of the barrels.

Monday 13 March 2000

On Friday evening I read various contributions to the organizational plan and felt rather dejected. It is in large measure the English. But also the substance is miserable. Today, Monday evening, I feel a little more hopeful. A few things seem to move forward. On Friday evening I had written a draft letter to the commissioners whom the Secretary-General had appointed to UNMOVIC’s (advisory) College of Commissioners. I wanted to tell them when I thought that our first meeting should be and – indirectly – that it should not be until the last week in May and certainly not to discuss our organizational plan for which we already have more than ample advice from governments. Today I had the boys reading it and John Scott – the legal adviser – polishing it. I hope that we can send it tomorrow.

Further, I managed to extricate my amended working plan draft from the computer and give it to Scott. So, a first rough draft of our organization is emerging. A lot remains to discuss in it, and some to consult with member states. But, at least, it is on the way, and it is only 13 March. It is due before 15 April.

I had lunch today with Hans Corell, the Swedish legal counsel of the UN. He has some 160 people working for him. Tomorrow he is flying to Cambodia to negotiate about some international presence in Cambodian tribunals which are to try Red Khmer leaders.

Today I also had the visit of the Kuwaiti perm. rep. whom I had met a couple of times as DG (Director General). He was enthusiastic about my taking the job (I think genuinely so far …). He also had some very good insights into important issues. I asked him why Saddam was holding on to small quantities of chemical and bacteriological weapons. He said he thought it was mainly to threaten minorities in the Iraqi population. He killed a Kurdish village with chemicals, as is well known.

Tuesday 14 March 2000

Sent the commissioners of the UNMOVIC college a letter congratulating them on their appointment, pointing to salient matters in Res. 1284 and proposing end of May as time for a meeting. The implication is that there should not be any meeting before I submit the organizational plan to the Security Council in the middle of April. I cannot see that they could do anything useful with the plan. The P5 and a few others have already advised us on how it should look. And their preferences do not coincide. So, the chance is not great that there would be a consensus in the College …

Wednesday 15 March 2000

Tomorrow is one of the great Muslim holidays – the day when Mohammed received the Koran, I am told – and the UN is closed. The UN was already beginning to empty today and I am sure there won’t be many people on Friday. I shall go there tomorrow, however. I had Sergey Lavrov, the Russian ambassador, in my office today. He seemed anxious to push for Russians to go into the staff – and for some Russians to be thrown out from the staff.

Saturday 18 March 2000

Spent the Muslim holiday mostly at the office working on the organizational plan with John Scott. We had lunch with Charles Duelfer, the former Deputy Executive Chairman (of UNSCOM) who resigned but with whom I have – I think – good relations. He seems a very decent guy, somewhat idealistic basically. He is giving me a good deal of information. Yesterday I learnt that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is going to have some hearing on our work and that our old enemies (of the IAEA), Leventhal and Milhollin, would be there. But also Duelfer – whose presence probably will be to our good.

Tuesday 21 March 2000. Equinox

Dimitri (Perricos), John (Scott) and I went over the organizational plan. Dimitri has many good points, really the result of good political judgement. He is of great help. John is sure in the writing, in the English. He does have some experience from forty years at the UN. I talked to the Dutch fellow in Chemical. Good if he stays, especially as Horst, the German who is section head, is leaving. We need to have someone left with experience.

Wednesday 22 March 2000 at 23.10

Just back from a dinner in Kofi Annan’s house at 3 Sutton Place. It was the ‘annual’ dinner for the Security Council. I had several useful conversations. I want to cultivate the non-P5, because in some situations it will fall to all outside the group of permanent members to say whether my stand is reasonable. So, I talked to Jamaica, Tunisia and Mali. I also managed to talk to Kofi about our two Russians whom Lavrov insists that we throw out of UNMOVIC. I said that their only sin might have been to be loyal to the UN rather than to Russia and that the issue pained me.

I was a bit puzzled by the meeting to which Kofi had called me at 11.30 today with the Russian representatives and the French. Maybe Kofi feels the general clamour about the suffering of the Iraqis under sanctions is pressing him and wants to push for starting up the inspection machinery as soon as possible so that we may get to suspension of sanction without unnecessary delay. In any case he seems to want us to seek to engage the Iraqis and the French, and the Russians want that, too. I explained I did not think the Iraqis would come along. They felt they were doing fine in their campaign against the sanctions and would like to have them crumble or lifted without accepting any inspections. It was, moreover, perfectly legitimate for them to want to see the organizational plan that we shall submit and judge the UNMOVIC on that basis. I said also that it was not good to come in a position of ‘demandeur’. Kofi concluded, fortunately, that there was no hurry to do anything before our organizational plan was out. Lavrov talked about the necessity to get rid of people who were ‘notorious’ and had taken part in espionage. I said all seemed to want to be pragmatic about old staff. Both Russia and France had each a staff member they wanted to stay in the Commission. There would be no automatic transfer to UN jobs. I had seen no evidence of wrongdoing. It would be awkward to fire people for having been loyal to the UN. I also hoped that the newcomers would be genuinely loyal. Perhaps Kofi had been pressed in Paris a few days ago to call the meeting? In any case, tonight Kofi said to me that the ambassadors had been very impressed with my frankness …

Today there were hearings under the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington. No less enemies (of mine) than Leventhal and Milhollin appeared. There was also Charles Duelfer who suggested that there was not much UNSCOM or UNMOVIC could do if the Security Council was not willing to act. Senator Biden castigated both witnesses, saying essentially that they had no recipes for what one should do. They had criticized the US for voting for me in the Security Council. What should they have done? Left the post vacant?

It is now ten to midnight and time to creep to bed. John Scott, Dimitri and I went through the text of the plan this afternoon and polished and modified. It is not so bad. Next step will be to consult Dhanapala. The SG’s chef de cabinet, Iqbal, said to me tonight that if Dhanapala had no problems, the SG’s office would not even look at it.

Thursday 23 March 2000 at 08.15

Sunny, cool day. Nice. Thought I should note some of the utterances which have come from the Iraqi side. They have rather consistently denounced Res. 1284 and in so doing distanced themselves from UNMOVIC. Until recently Tariq Aziz had been silent, but in an interview in the Guardian the other day he said he would be a fool if he recommended acceptance of this vile text. Asked whether Blix had not given them good marks on the nuclear dossier, he replied that I never stood up for them. The reality was that we said that there remained some questions, that there could never be complete clarity and that it was really the task of the Security Council to determine what residue of uncertainty it would tolerate. Clean bills of health don’t exist – whether in medicine or in inspection.

We sent a letter to missions asking their governments’ assistance in finding potential candidates with qualifications in biological and chemical weapons and missiles. Torkel and I decided that we should send it – for information – to the Iraqis as a kind of low-key courtesy. Yesterday I had an angry letter from Iraq’s resident representative denouncing Resolution 1284 in some detail and ending that they had nothing to do with the commission and sent the letter back … OK, pals, I think you are not uninterested in what we do and how we organize ourselves and our letter, though of very minor importance, was nevertheless something you would register. We shall not send you more by mail, troubling you to write further angry letters to us. You will fish them up in the stream in New York. Last night at Kofi Annan’s I told the Tunisian ambassador that the Iraqi apparently had said ‘Blix has said it is not a purpose of his commission to humiliate Iraq. Who the hell does Blix think he is, to believe that he can humiliate Iraq?’ The Tunisian, who claims they have the ear of the Iraqis, said, well, don’t worry, they listen very carefully and your noises have been very good.

Friday 24 March 2000 at 07.40

Yesterday I was at lunch with the Kuwaiti ambassador. Magnificent residence at Beekman place with a view of East River. Met lots of ambassadors from the Arab world. Useful.

I also had a journalist, the so-called Druze missile, who interviewed me at length. She is extremely well informed. Has followed the Iraqi issue since the beginning. There were some risky questions, and I don’t know what will come out.

Tuesday 28 March 2000

I have now been here for a month. The room (at my hotel) seems more bearable, especially after I got Göran’s Senneh Kurd rug. The rug that lay here made my stomach cringe … However, New York seems dreary to me. I have no longing to explore the 2,000 best restaurants to spend money and get too many calories. I don’t need to shop for anything. Theatre once in a while is enjoyable. Remains work, which is really challenging, but the office is horrible, especially when compared to the working environment in Vienna! I must dial seven digits before I can begin to dial a telephone number!

Had dinner Friday night with Dick Gardner (New York attorney and professor at Columbia University) at the Century Club, which is for writing people. Dick says he is very close to Vice President Gore. I hope he will be rewarded. This time it is Richard Holbrooke who is in the limelight. Saw him yesterday with Jeremy Greenstock (perm. rep. of UK) in the SG’s office. We talked Iraq and Jeremy stressed the need for saving institutional memory and not losing valuable old staff at UNMOVIC. It was a useful counterweight to Lavrov’s and Levitte’s pressure last week. I think the SG realizes that tossing out the two Russians is not that simple …

Yesterday we finalized the organizational plan, and I gave a copy to Dhanapala who is to see it on behalf of the SG, who is to be consulted about it according to the resolution.

Tomorrow I shall have a chat with Ambassador Chowdouri, Bangladeshi President of the SC until Saturday. I shall describe our organizational plan without giving him the document.

Saturday 1 April 2000. Subject: Iraq

This morning, I have been reading two chapters about Kofi Annan and his handling of the Iraq problems in William Shawcross’ Deliver Us from Evil (Simon and Schuster, 2000). First-class writing. The first chapter is about the so-called palace crisis early in 1998, when Annan went to Iraq and reached a memorandum of understanding with Saddam Hussein about the rights of UNSCOM to inspect ‘presidential sites’; the other chapter is about the crisis in November 1998 when the US threatened to bomb, and Annan helped to avert the threat by getting Iraq to back down. Both chapters show Annan with a lot of stamina, diplomatic skill, much realism and also a wish to avoid violence. Reading this I feel stimulated to put down some ideas.

It remains very important to seek to have a consensus among the P5 – and preferably the whole SC. Annan did not go to Baghdad in Feb. 98 until he had consensus on main points in the SC. The British helped bring it about and he stuck to it.

All the P5 seem determined that UNMOVIC must have unrestricted rights of access. However, three – China, Russia and France – seem sceptical of very tough inspections. Or is it only demonstrative, harassing or provocative inspections they oppose?

Looked at overall it would seem difficult for Iraq to acquire a substantial capacity and to become a major military factor again. However, biological and chemical weapons require little space and with a few missiles with 600 km capacity or a few pilotless planes such weapons could create fear and even bring substantial injury before massive retaliation set in. The political impact of a continuity or revival of Iraq’s programme would be even worse. If the world fails to keep WMDs out of the hands of Iraq, despite control of Iraq’s oil revenues and export controls, despite the most draconian inspection regime ever designed and despite US and UK bombing threats, how could we hope to dissuade other states – like Iran? But one also needs to look at the situation from Iraq’s perspective. We must assume that Iran and Syria and Israel have C (chemical) weapons, that Israel has nuclear weapons and that Iran is moving toward nuclear capacity. Does not all this simply lead to the conclusion that the Middle East peace process is vital to reduce the perceived need for such weapons and the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction with stiff verification. Of course, it will take time, but even a not too fragile movement in this direction might be helpful. Perhaps one should talk more about the zone and the Iraq control regime as a learning process?

What can I do to stimulate consensus among the P5? The most evident is to build UNMOVIC to become a dispassionate, independent, genuinely international body. Do not testify to more than we see. Give an accurate idea of what we do not know. Do it all in calm accurate descriptions. Have the right mix of people. Now is the chance to redress the balance. We want competent Chinese, Poles, Turks, Indians, Latinos. Inspection teams should not have a majority of Anglo-Saxons. Nor should the leading positions be dominated by any one group. Yet there must be competence! I doubt that independence, measured language and objectivity will persuade Iraq to ‘come clean’, but it is of some importance to them and it is also of importance to make UNMOVIC acceptable to all the P5 and to other members of the UN.

Kofi Annan comes across as wanting to engage Iraq in dialogue. Query whether he has been disappointed in his efforts. I certainly don’t think the present juncture is the right moment for any determined effort. It would only be met by an upbeat Iraq demanding the termination of international financial control and effective inspection. However, while direct dialogue with them would be hopeless today, the public dialogue goes on all the time. When I am interviewed, I am aware that what they print is read by Iraq. The same goes for Kofi Annan and for the US. And we read what the Iraqis are saying … This must be used very consciously.

An important point is probably that Iraq must get the feeling that sanctions really can be lifted or suspended. They may not believe that this is the case, having heard US politicians say that sanctions will not be lifted until Saddam goes. Certainly, it is difficult for the US to affirm loudly that, yes, indeed, they are ready to lift sanctions if Iraq fulfils its obligations. But a bit more explicit US support for the suspension concept might be possible and desirable. The US could distinguish the cases of lifting and of suspension. After all, suspension would allow a reintroduction, if Iraq stopped cooperating! Another matter is that sanctions today really mean not many restrictions on needed food imports, but rather financial controls of what is imported. If smuggling continues on a large or increasing scale, the financial controls become less meaningful. Combined with restrictions on the monitoring and inspection, the road to a revival of weapons programmes would be there. It would seem important that the US gets Iran to help stop traffic through Iranian waters of oil tankers. Perhaps also Turkey to clamp down on oil trucks. Pressure on Jordan would also be important – perhaps more difficult.

Assuming that it may be quite some time before Iraq admits UNMOVIC, that time should be used well. If we are not on the ground, we must energetically make use of other sources to remain expert on what Iraq does. How? Open media should be studied. Leads like the – perhaps dubious – one about a missile factory in Sudan needs to be studied closely. We should get more satellite imagery. Hence, we need personnel who can read such imagery. Would we have need of U2 and Mirages (aircraft) as well? We need to be fed by intelligence services in East and West. In particular information about procurement by Iraq should not be all that sensitive. So, we need the intelligence expert on board. Study of our own documents concerning export/import would also be important. We have the heavy pile of data (from the time of UNSCOM) to comb through.

While we should not rush to expand our staff as soon as the SC has approved the organizational plan, we should recruit to have a balanced core of managers and we should lose no time in setting up the training course for a balanced inspectorate. Perhaps twenty-four to thirty-six participants? It would give us the roster of inspectors trained by us that we need if Iraq suddenly accepts inspection. Location: state of New York. Time: July. Length: six weeks. Teachers: our own staff and past staff. Earlier staff in Baghdad and Bahrein. Perhaps also some diplomats from the US, UK, Russia and France to illustrate the differences …

A vital task already set in motion is the compilation of remaining disarmament questions. This task is now before the sections. The UN Doc. S/1999/94 is there but we need crisper lists. They should be subject to the critical scrutiny of the fresh personnel that comes in. The subsequent much more difficult task will be to decide which are the key disarmament issues. This should be left for later to me and a few collaborators. After our own views have been formed, perhaps we would call in government experts to discuss it with us … to avoid quarrel when we submit them to the SC.

Perhaps it would be good that Iraq gets to know our demands before we go in rather than discussing them when we have gone in (if we go in). They must know that it is not a crippled UMOVIC that comes, but one with full powers and rights, but also one which can be expected to be truly international. We should also be ready to act on the MOU (memorandum of understanding) concerning inspections at some presidential sites – and tell them so in advance. The procedure for such inspections is not all that cumbersome. Iraq should be put on notice that this will happen – but not when. This will also be a deterrent for them. Presidential sites are not immune …

Sunday 2 April 2000

We finished our draft on the organizational plan for UNMOVIC this week and it has the support of the undersecretary for disarmament, Dhanapala. In the coming week I shall consult with the Canadian ambassador who is this month’s president of the Security Council as to how we shall submit it. Copies must go in English to all the members of the Council at the same time as they go to the translators, because the text invariably leaks when the translators get it. Scandalous, but you have to count on it!

This Sunday morning, I had a meeting with the deputy minister of defence of Israel (Mr Snee). He was in transit from California to Israel. He apologized for asking to see me on a Sunday. We had a good talk. He sought to impress upon me how important they felt UNMOVIC’s work was. They would help us with information and fully accepted that it was a one-way traffic. We are not in the trading business. He thought Saddam’s highest priority was to keep power for his tribe and family. The power and standing of Iraq were only the second priority. I said, if so, did he really need WMDs? To keep his own population under control, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons were hardly needed. I also stressed the long-term vision of a zone free of WMDs. He said for Israel the criterion was first comprehensive peace. I commented that (Shimon) Peres had said to me that democracy, too, was needed. Mr Snee denied there was such a requirement. He agreed that a rapprochement between the US and Iran and a peace between Israel and Syria would make Iraq less dangerous. For the present time they saw in Iraq the greatest danger to Israel. Chemical and biological weapons did not cause enormous injuries by themselves, but they were terror weapons that would scare people.

Tonight, I am going to the theatre with Torkel. And tomorrow I shall have lunch with Richard Butler – my predecessor. I shall also go through with section heads the various names of applicants and the various names they have suggested from previous inspectors. We need to get a flying start on recruitment of a core team. As for inspectors we can limit ourselves to recruitment to a training course. We need also to focus on the sources we have to assess what is happening in Iraq. OK, there are no inspectors, but satellites are in the sky, suppliers submit export licences, intelligence goes on. Newspapers publish reports. Use what we have.

Saturday 8 April 2000

It has been a fairly lively week. On Monday I had lunch with Richard Butler (former chairman of UNSCOM) at an excellent restaurant on 42 E 20 Street: Gramercy Tavern. He has just finished his book. He goes on lots of speaking trips all over the US and apparently makes lots of money from it. He loves publicity and being in the limelight. Indeed, this was one of the reasons why he became impossible. He reported to media before the Security Council … On the analysis of Iraq, we don’t have any differences. He was too close to the US. Russia, France China and others felt ignored. It got so far that Lavrov, the Russian ambassador, refused to be in the Security Council so long as Butler was there. Butler does not have many friends at home in Australia, either. Perhaps he is too noisy, too crusading? After our lunch I walked up the twenty-five streets to the UN to get some exercise.

We had promised to give the Canadian President of the Security Council the organizational report before lunch on Thursday. As had been predicted, the report was spread further the very moment that we handed it over. In the same afternoon Reuters and AP (Associated Press) had descriptions of it. And an Israeli delegate was seen to be carrying it only an hour after we had seen the Canadian! Well, people seem to be used to this. The main thing was that media did not have it before we gave to the President of the Council. At our end there was no leakage.

The Russian ambassador, Lavrov, visited me only hours before the report was given. He seemed rather relaxed. I told him that I was thinking of placing Mr Zhukov on the post as External Relations officer in my own office. This seemed to cheer him up a good deal. He also knew that we have asked four Russians to come for interviews. Even without having read the report he congratulated me on it. However, it is nevertheless likely that he will say some negative things about it in the council to please the Iraqis who so far will have nothing to do with Res. 1284. The Chinese ambassador visited me yesterday and he had nothing negative to say, although he had read the report. This is encouraging. He, too, knew that we are asking four Chinese candidates for interviews … I also made it clear to him that the job of activity evaluator in my office could be Chinese … The French ambassador is coming on Monday. Naturally we are also calling some French candidates for interviews … The Brits, Canadians and Americans seem quite pleased with the report. Hope they don’t show it too much … Well, if it sails through without much creaking it will be because we have stuck very faithfully to the balance that was struck in Res. 1284.

Next week I shall concentrate on preparing for the meeting in the Security Council. I must have a short introduction. I am also beginning to think about the meeting of the College of Commissioners which is scheduled for 23 and 24 May. This could be used as an occasion for me to elaborate a bit on how inspections are to be conducted and send Iraq signals that I do not feel bound by Ekéus’ ‘modalities’ of inspection of ‘sensitive sites’ and that I feel the SG’s memorandum of understanding regarding inspection of presidential sites is not only binding but alive and operative. Butler said to me that inspection of such sites is now a dead issue. I wonder.

If I were to lay out the text to the College, I should probably also explain the view that inspections are, as I have said publicly, an ‘opportunity’, not a ‘penalty’. So far Iraq has not seen it that way and certainly not used it that way. However, taking them at their word that they have nothing more, maximum cooperation with inspection would be a way they could try to convince us and the world. Grudging cooperation will not. When they complain that the burden of proof has been placed on them to show that there is nothing and hold that the inspectors should prove there is something or else acquit them, I think they are smartly trying a parallel that is false. An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and he can stay silent and let the prosecution do its job. There is no presumption that Iraq does not have any more weapons of mass destruction unless we prove the opposite! It should be in their interest to convince the Security Council and the world that nothing remains. Convincing the inspectors is the shortest way to do this. Thus, Iraq should facilitate their work. Inspections are more credible if there is no notice or minimal notice. Thus, such inspections are in their interest. On the other hand, there is no need for the UN demonstratively to display inspection power. Just do it in an unobtrusive manner. We can probably without much loss of effectiveness avoid flying over Baghdad if such flights are seen as insulting. The no-notice or short-notice technique is used in the IAEA and in the CWC (Additional Protocol for safeguarding inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention). Thus, it is not a concept invented to humiliate Iraq.

Thursday 13 April 2000. Family Events

The week has been good for the family! On Monday 10 April Göran had his oral for the PhD and got an A+. He phoned me in the evening, and I was happy to join Göran and Bozena for an Indian dinner at Dawat on 58 St. His exam had taken two hours and gone very well all the way through. Wonderful. He has now six months to prepare a plan for his dissertation which will deal not only with Balzac but the period and particularly what Göran calls ‘l’ecriture visualiste’ (visualist writing).

Yesterday, Mårten called me and told me that a reorganization in the Riksbank (Swedish central bank) might give him a job as director of a division in the Economic Department. Not bad at thirty-one. He is now about to fly to Cairo and then on to Sharm El Sheikh and a week of diving in the Red Sea.

Thursday 27 April 2000

Monday morning. Easter Monday. Was not a holiday here – but it is at home. Up a quarter past four to put Eva in a car for Kennedy airport at five! Horrible. Attended opening of NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) review conference. Listened to Kofi Annan. Good speech. He saw me in the audience and sent for me after his speech. He had met the Iraqi foreign minister at the non-aligned meeting in Havana. Later in the day he sent me the transcript from the meeting. I said to Kofi that I thought I ought to be upfront with my views how inspections should be conducted, so that the Iraqis would know and could take it or leave it – but not negotiate it. He seemed to agree. This is now foremost in my mind. To make a policy speech at the meeting of our College of Commissioners.

Tuesday. More interviews. A very good Russian woman chemist. We were all enthusiastic. Lunch with Mohamed ElBaradei who had spoken at the NPT review conference.

In the afternoon I interviewed Lieutenant General McIver, a New Zealander, whom I want to make our intelligence officer.

Today more interviews, then visit by Celso Amorim, earlier perm. rep. of Brazil in NY, earlier foreign minister of Brazil, now ambassador in Geneva. He chaired the famous Iraq panels for the Security Council before UNMOVIC was set up. I said we had tried to follow their ideas almost completely. I asked him why he did not take the Chairmanship that I have. Having spent all his life on peace and disarmament he had not said no. But it became clear to him that one perm member of the SC would not accept him (presumably the US). When he learnt about it, he refused to let his name go forward.

Tonight, buffet dinner for Nordic NPT delegations at Hans Dahlgren. Talked a lot to Hans. He said that Butler had been too talkative, too media hungry, too preaching. It did not go well down in the Council. UNSCOM had also not been very popular. He could compare the reports of the IAEA and those of UNSCOM. The agency’s reports were matter of fact. Dry. This suited the council much better.

Sunday 7 May 2000. Stockholm

Home for a long weekend. Left New York Thursday afternoon. Had had lunch with a ‘false beard’ (intelligence agent). My luncheon companion told me that my Russian paid staff member was an officer in their intelligence service. Nice of them to ask priority for him in the hiring of new staff. Here they preach about the necessity of making UNMOVIC a UN body and about the spy scandals of the past and push me to hire one of the same kind! (if the information I got was correct.) No illusions.

Thursday 11 May 2000, New York

Swedish crown princess here. She is writing a study about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC! I asked Bovallius (from FOA) to join us and we gave her a one-hour briefing. Asked good questions of her own. We talked from 11.00 to 13.00. Thereafter I hosted a luncheon for her plus her two security guards. It was nice and we had a fine table in the delegates’ dining room. Excellent view of East River.

Saturday 13 May 2000

The days in the office melt away. Much is administration and information … On Friday the three section heads for inspection of biological and chemical weapons and missiles, Gabriele Kraatz-Wadzack, Igor Mitrokhin and Nikita Smidovich came with their reports on ‘unresolved disarmament issues’ – a hot issue. It is excellent that they have worked on this with their knowledge of history. We shall have had a flying start …

The training course is also taking concrete shape. I have signed letters to all instructors inviting them – and promising no payment except travel and per diem … The course is in Nikita’s hands, and he is very effective. …

In a conversation between Knutsson (assistant to Secretary-General Kofi Annan) and the Iraqi ambassador, the impression was gained that the most important point for the Iraqis was how we define ‘unresolved disarmament issues’. I am not surprised. Their tactic at the moment is to say that Res. 1284 is absurd and that they will have nothing to do with it. At the same time, they are making it known what would be their price for accepting it: not too many unresolved disarmament issues, stopping the US/UK bombing, stopping US no-fly zones, termination of sanctions, throwing out Smidovich and Mitrokhin. The eternal bazaar …

Friday 19 May 2000

Yesterday I saw Kofi Annan and briefed him on Iraq. I asked him at least to refrain from siding with the Russians on their demand for the removing of Smidovich and Mitrokhin. He promised this and said he would advise the Russians not to make such a fuss about the matter. Torkel Stiernlof reported to me that the Russian counsellor says the Russians feel I am treating them badly. I did not accept their idea for a political advisory committee (of the P5) inside the secretariat. Now I am also not accepting their Middle East Desk officer, ‘Kalmukhavov’ or something. Moscow had already placed him here! They now have no post for him … It is outrageous! They believe that international posts belong to them and that they can do what they want with these posts! The counsellor had also said that they had wanted to help me. As things stood, they had given up. I would have to run my own race. OK. Fine! I don’t doubt they have some influence on the Iraqis, but I don’t think they will accept inspection for my blue eyes or for Russian persuasion.

Monday 22 May 2000

Tomorrow (first) meeting with College of Commissioners for UNMOVIC. Worked long on an introductory speech. Interesting to see if Russians will be militant. They appear more and more as spokesmen for the Iraqis.

Friday 26 May 2000

Tuesday and Wednesday I had the first meeting of the College of Commissioners. About eighteen of them, including P5. I think the French (Thérèse Delpech) and the Ukrainian ambassador to Washington, Gryshchenko, being in the middle and rather independent, might be very helpful to show what is reasonable. The chemistry of the group was good. In the best case it could prove to be a place where agreements could be worked out between P5 states.

I had a long – partly academic – speech laying the basis for more practical arguments. The cause célèbre of the Commission was when Nikita Smidovich had done his presentation of the ‘training programme’; the Russian member, Fedotov, took the floor and asked Nikita whether he felt it was ‘appropriate for him to run a training course’ …

Saturday 27 May 2000

It is Saturday and I have a long weekend ahead of me. Monday is Memorial Day, and the UN joins the US in taking it off from work. I plan to push ahead reading Richard Butler’s book The Greatest Threat, which has just appeared and in which he curses Saddam Hussain, Tariq Aziz and other Iraqis, but has also harsh judgements of the permanent five members of the Security Council and of Kofi Annan. It will be interesting to see if he has any self-criticism … I have no doubt about Richard’s idealism and intense drive to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Nor am I unaware that on several crucial occasions he has succeeded in pulling very unwilling rabbits out of the hat. He did so at one of the NPT review conferences (1985 I think), and did it again to bring the CTBT (comprehensive test ban treaty) before the General Assembly despite Indian opposition. That manoeuvre cost Australia a seat on the Security Council for a time, but – the CTBT is there.

Tonight, I shall have dinner with Steve and Louise Schwebel. Steve went into retirement February this year, having been a superb President of the International Court of Justice for a number of years. We are coming full circle. We first met in 1954 or ’55, when Steve worked at White and Case and I was at Columbia Law School. We had lots of fun together in New York. Then we met again in the General Assembly of 1961, where I was a – rather young – Swedish delegate in the Sixth (legal) Committee and Steve assisted the US delegate, whoever that was. After the end of the assembly, we went together to St Croix, Christiansted, for swimming and sipping rum and orange juice.

For the first time in a long while I feel rather relaxed. There were three milestones for me in coming here. First, the press conference after I had presented myself to the Secretary-General. And the meeting with the remaining UNSCOM personnel. The second was forty-five days after that, when I was to present the organizational plan for UNMOVIC to the Security Council. On the whole, it was warmly endorsed. Only the Russians had significant reservations, though, I must say, they sounded in part a bit contrived. One of the more curious Russian suggestions has been that we should have a unit that would rush in and help solve frictions and conflicts between UNMOVIC and Iraq. Within UNMOVIC we would then have a unit that should solve our own conflicts! Would it mediate between the Chairman and Iraq? Would it be manned by someone Russian or French or American … ?

Another weird idea from the Russians was that we should have a five-man-strong group of political advisers. My immediate reaction was that on any difficult issue arising the chances were that five advisers from the P5 would disagree. We would simply import into UNMOVIC the differences existing among the P5. Or was the group meant to substitute for the Chairman? If so, we would import the veto and the paralysis of the Security Council. On p. 101 of R. Butler’s book The Greatest Threat I find that in November 1997 a message from Saddam Hussein to the SG of the UN suggested that there should be a deputy executive chairman appointed for each of the five permanent members of the Security Council to undertake specifically with the Executive Chairman the responsibility of decision-making and the direction of activities of the Commission. Thus, the idea was to disarm the chairman and – if necessary to paralyse.

When this idea, the origin of which I have now seen, did not materialize in my organizational plan – no one else had bought it – Lavrov suggested that we should strengthen the legal adviser’s office … An unusual idea to come from Russia … the more so as they did not have any candidate for that office. Well, I am now trying to recruit Surya Sinha, Indian. He would be loyal and has a good name from the IAEA.

Now, the third milestone was the meeting of the College of Commissioners – some eighteen of them. One from each of the P5, one from each of the world’s regions and one for each of the weapons types we are after (biological, chemical and missiles). Plus a few extra. I worked long and hard on a speech for the College. For several reasons. One was that I wanted to share my thinking about the opportunities and limitations of inspection with the commissioners. However, I also reckoned that the speech – despite the private character of our meetings – would get to the Iraqis and that it would be good if they learnt upfront how I saw inspections. The speech was a difficult one to write. Also, on some points I found that if I declared very clearly where I stood, the comment from the Iraqis, Russians and perhaps others would be that I was totally hard-line and even worse than my predecessors … So rather than proclaiming where I stood on a couple of points, I asked the commissioners for advice. This worked well. The meeting was very lively and good. The chemistry was rather good. We have Bob Einhorn, assistant secretary for non-proliferation from the State Department; hard but reasonable and experienced. Fedotov from the Russian MoFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs): a solid and experienced fellow, said to be hard-line. Then Thérèse Delpech, head of international affairs at the Commisariat à l’Energie Atomique. She was not the choice of the Quai d’Orsai (French Foreign Ministry) but was her own – and Kofi Annan’s – choice. She is forceful and independent, and she was very helpful. She told me she wanted to work for me. I replied I wanted her to work with me. Amb. Gryshchenko (from the Ukraine’s embassy in Washington) was also most helpful and independent. British Mr Shulte (from their ministry of defence) was able and also helpful. Two Latinos (an Argentinian named Heineken and a Brazilian microbiologist named Monteleone Neto). A German professor biologist named Boehm, an Indian nuclear scientist, Dr Prasad (formerly with IAEA), a Nigerian named Abidion, a Senegalese named Sheikh Sylla, a Canadian military and former UNSCOM commissioner (Clemenson), a Finnish professor and former UNSCOM commissioner and a Japanese diplomat (Kazuhara, formerly accredited to the IAEA).

I suppose the function originally imagined for the College was that it should guard against the Executive Chairman doing some wild things. For Ekéus the commission was always a rubber stamp. After Butler (and to some extent Ekéus) it would be there to restrain. My conclusion is that in the best case it could be of great help. Differences between the US and Russia could be dealt with here directly or with the help of other commissioners or me. It could be a place for negotiations rather than one where the chairman was taken to task.

Monday 29 May 2000

This is the evening of Memorial Day (the day to remember those who fell in wars for the US), the last day of my three-day weekend. I have spent much time reading Butler’s book. Staffing is complicated. You want a good geographical distribution and high professional qualifications. And you must have a balance between divisions and inside divisions. Perricos was there today, and we sat between ten and two thirty. His energy is limitless, and his judgement is good.

On Wednesday morning I shall have a staff meeting. The some ten staff who have government contracts are getting nervous. The staff paid by the UN have contracts that expire at the end of June, and they have only been promised that they can compete with outsiders. Now that we probably have most of the applications that we shall get from outsiders we must make choices soon. I think the staff is reasonably relaxed with me, while at the start it was probably sceptical and worried. Smidovich and Mitrokhin are probably relieved that I am not dumping them under some political pressure but regarding the matter as one of UN integrity. I think all will be glad to see some order. Butler and Scott Ritter are probably not missed.

Wednesday 31 May

I took Swissair at Kennedy (airport) in the evening to arrive in Geneva the next morning, Ascension Day. Eva, who had arrived the evening before, met me. Glorious warm weather. What a difference to be together. So many lovely flowers whose names I don’t know in English. And we heard the cuckoo and ‘marmots’. Lovely feeling of spring.

In the evening (of 4 June) I took Air France to Paris and caught a bus to Porte Maillot and a taxi to a small hotel – Hotel de France, 102 Bd Latour Maubourg, near Invalides. It was a hotel discovered by Alice Hecht and used by both Ekéus and Butler. Amazingly cheap. 490 francs. Less than a hundred dollars. A drab room but perfectly functional.

Monday 5 June. Paris

Meeting at 11.30 with the Foreign Minister, Vedrine. Gerard Errera was there plus a number of others. I found them surprisingly firm against Iraq. Their public posture is perceived to be softer. I warned against showing any anxiety and urgency for a dialogue and agreement with Iraq. The Iraqis will only raise the price if they see you eager. It is no different from buying a rug in the bazaar. I asked about possible assistance provided through Mirage photo flights. I said the Iraqis surely did not like any overhead watching, but probably disliked French less than American, because the French could not be suspected of identifying targets for bombing.

After lunch, to the ministry of defence and the strategic affair unit, where there was a round table for me to address. And to answer questions. Lots of military. I guess they sized me up. At the end, a visit to the minister of defence, Richard, who evidently liked to speak English (and did it very well). I asked him whether we could have French satellite pictures and French intelligence. Although the resolution of the French satellite pictures is less than the American, it would be good to have a source outside the US.

Tuesday 6 June in New York

After a shower at the apartment and leaving laundry with the Korean laundry I went to the office and met the French counselor who briefed me about the next day’s meeting with the Security Council. He foresaw no great problems and, indeed, it turned out to be an easy affair. Lavrov had a long off-the-cuff statement with various reservations, but nothing harsh. He pleads for dialogue with Iraq. Well, if the Council does not want to sell out Res. 1284 I think it should not show eagerness. In any case it was a relief to have the Council meeting over. On Thursday (8 June) I had a long talk with Olof Skoog, who has been Hans Dahlgren’s assistant and who Torkel recommended me to take on as executive assistant. He knows all other delegations and seems bright and effective. So, I offered him the job.

Saturday 10 June 2000

Two weeks have passed. It is now decidedly summer. 25–30°C. The last few days of May I had lots of people to interview. I find it interesting to talk to people and try to size them up. It is as much a matter of watching their demeanour as assessing the answers. It is also good that I am not the only one to interview candidates. Dimitri, Rachel Davies and Alice Hecht sitting together have another, often longer and more thorough go. So far, our conclusions have been remarkably similar.

Sunday 11 June 2000

Whitsun was as warm as the preceding days – over +30°C. Mårten and I had a huge pizza with Göran and Bo on Broadway. I bought a book about the Iraq conflict and found in the text the same erroneous statements that have come several times before and that originate – in all likelihood – from David Kay. What makes me indignant is to see that one political writer after another gladly swallows these things without checking. It is instructive to compare the source pages in Richard Butler’s book with those of the political writers. Richard’s are almost only official letters and UN documents. I would seriously quarrel with the judgements he offers in some places but not often with descriptions of events or statements made. The political writers seem to practise a genre between fiction and history.

Wednesday 14 June

Assad of Syria has died. In the longer run I think it improves the outlook, as the younger have grown up with Israel next door and are used to it and as they are better educated and more outward looking. Whether this would be true of Saddam’s sons is another question.

15 June 2000. New York

Today, some things cleared. For a long while I had thought of candidates for the job as legal adviser. Among the candidates there was a Sudanese woman who had served in the preparation of the referendum in Western Sahara. She stated a diplomatic background in the UN but also a PhD in international law from Oxford. And, as important, fluent Arabic. She was said to be bright and a good writer, wrote stories and poetry. Not that we need stories, but I thought if she liked writing stories it means she likes writing and has a feeling for words and language. Not bad for a lawyer. So, I decided I would phone her in Oxford and ask whether she was interested. Yes, indeed! She had been pushed out of the Sudanese diplomatic service when the fundamentalists came in and lived in exile – and comfortably – in Oxford. She came today. Lively, bright, charming, articulate, knew lots of international lawyers, had served in the Sixth Committee, did not feel the sanctions on Iraq were immoral and would be delighted to serve and work hard. So, we hired her.

Friday 16 June

Had an interesting talk this afternoon with Ambassador Buallay of Bahrein, where we want to have our relay station for trips into Iraq. I said that the Iraqi position was not to accept Resolution 1284 of Dec. ’99 as the way out of the impasse reached after the collapse of UNSCOM. In my assessment a solution might grow during the summer and autumn. It was unlikely that this would come together before the US presidential election, but it could happen in December. By that time UNMOVIC should be ready to go in. Ambassador Buallay seemed to agree: the situation staying static seemed unlikely. The US/UK were under pressure to stop bombing and ease sanctions. Iraq was under pressure to accept inspection and wanted less financial control (by the international community) over its oil proceeds. Standing still was unlikely. Time may be ripe for change.

I had a short talk with Nikita Zhukov today, telling him that I want him to be fully and usefully engaged. He will have the position of Adviser on External Relations. I suggested that he could continue doing what he has been specializing in, namely, watching Iraq, the leadership’s composition and attitudes. If he wanted to report something he thought sensitive, it might be wiser to give it to me orally. We always risked that a written brief could go astray. I took it for granted that he would brief me on Russian positions. He seemed gladly to agree to my suggestions and said he thought no one was interested in much action at present. Russia was certainly interested in an easing of restrictions on the export to Iraq. For Russia these exports were of great importance to keep a variety of enterprises going. The grumbling in the Security Council was more lip service.

On Saturday 17 June something unlikely happened. Before going home for Midsummer and to Berlin I felt I had to do something about my apartment situation, so I phoned the Swedish broker who was known to the Swedish mission and told him what my wishes were. He contacted me the morning after, and we went to see the flat. It has the location I wanted: some twenty blocks’ walk from the UN. It has a lofty view. The rent is quite decent – 3,500 dollars per month. But the brokers’ fees were terrible: over 7,000 dollars or 17 per cent of one year’s rent. We signed the contract on Thursday 22 June, the same day I left for Stockholm.

Friday 23 June, arrival in Stockholm and you (Mårten) met me in your beautiful little toy, the BMW with map and electronic guide. How wonderful to see trees and green fields again … And nice to be driven well and prudently. You met me at Arlanda and took me to Gräsö (the Blix family island compound) where Eva had already arrived the evening before. The weather was fine. Eva went jogging every day and took a dip in the +14°C water. I, too, went in twice. In the afternoon, we dressed a midsummer’s pole with leaves and flowers and danced around it singing ‘Vi gaa oever daggstaenkta berg …’ ‘Smaa grodorna …’ etc.

Back to Stockholm on the Tuesday (27 June) after Midsummer. Göran and Bo arrived (in Stockholm) on my (seventy-second) birthday, Wednesday 28 June. We all went to Wedholms Fisk restaurant and had a good birthday celebration.

Stockholm 2 July 2000

On Saturday 1 July we attended the wedding between Lisa Kettis (Eva’s niece) and Anders Martin Lööf. Some 120 people. First at Övergarn church – lovely, medieval. The wedding reception and dinner was at Kraegga Vaerdshus. Fantastic view of Lake Malar and huge dinner in a barn.

On Tuesday (4 July) I go to Berlin for a Chernobyl pledging conference and for the Chernobyl Shelter Fund Assembly. Then a visit to the German foreign ministry and thereafter to New York and my new apartment at 200 East 61 Street. Apt 30 F. Exciting!

Excellent talk in German foreign ministry with state secretary Ischinger and the head of disarmament and UN desk. They promised continued strong support.

Flight to New York. Moving into 200 East 61 St Apt 30 F

Kind reception by the doorman at 200 East 61 Street. Strange to come into a new apartment, make the bed, find the lamps. Göran and Bo came with stuff they had kept for me and they helped me take stuff I had stored at the UN. Feel better now. Have filled the refrigerator and have left laundry at the Korean laundry across the street. Tomorrow I must work on my lecture for the training course.

Sunday 9 July 2000

Feeling better today. Slept until seven and had a leisurely morning. Wrote notes for my welcoming the people at the training course on Tuesday. Walked around the closest blocks to see what stores there are. It would be nice to get the TV going too, but I don’t see how. The New York Times has come, however, which is nice.

Tuesday 11 July

UNMOVIC’s first training course began today, organized by Nikita Smidovich. Some forty-four participants from eighteen countries. The course will last a little over four weeks and members of our old staff are also taking part. I opened the course today and gave a long lecture on the role of international inspection, zeroing in on UNSCOM. Rolf Ekéus has been invited to speak tomorrow. I invited Rolf for lunch yesterday. He was clearly hurt by Barbara Crosette’s article in the New York Times, in which she suggested that Butler had come on board an already-sinking UNSCOM ship. Yet I think it was true.

Friday 14 July. Bastille Day

It is evening. I sat in my drawing room tonight and watched dusk coming. I think it was Astrid Lindgren who used the expression ‘hålla skymning’ – ‘celebrate dusk’? There is something very special about ‘les heures bleues’ – the blue hours. The span between the end of the toiling day and the restful night. The moment of relaxation, of détente. Watching dusk setting from my drawing room is not a bad way to decelerate. Watching how the airplanes rise in the sky above La Guardia. Watching one helicopter after another buzzing over Manhattan. Watching how the rather ugly desert of stone houses is transformed into a cosier mass of black with a thousand lights indicating life and warmth.

On Tuesday I shall go to Washington and see Pickering (Undersecretary for Political Affairs) and Holum (Undersecretary for Disarmament). I bring with me Perricos, chiefly to show Washington that he has a strong position on my staff. On Wednesday I fly to London, and I shall see both foreign minister and defence minister. I’ll do that alone. I am struggling with a paper on UNMOVIC’s ‘operating procedures’. I know in the main how I want to modify the ‘modalities’, but I think it would be unwise to spell it out in the document that comes in advance of the (College) meeting. The Russians might show it to the Iraqis and would be bound to get negative reactions which they (the Russians) would feel they would have to register. Better to come with these points orally and stimulate a discussion, hopefully to get support. I prefer neutral formulations that do not openly assume non-cooperation.

I meet more observers who somewhat doubt that Iraq will ever let UNMOVIC in. Well, it is by no means certain. In the global bazaar they will press for much greater financial and trade freedom and for as little inspection as they can get away with. If it looks too meagre to them, they will hold off and hope that the other side will budge. All I can do is try to look impartial and reasonable. I think the risk is small that the US and UK would go along with pressures on me to go for ‘light’ inspection. And I would rather go home. Cosmetic inspection is worse than none.

Tuesday 25 July at 08.45

In half an hour Dimitri Perricos is coming. We shall take the shuttle plane to Washington, where we shall see a lot of people, notably Tom Pickering – the undersecretary for political affairs – and John Holum – the undersecretary for disarmament affairs.

The last few days have been focused on the new discussion paper on ‘operation procedures’ for the College of Commissioners. There is a balance to be struck between firmness and unwillingness to concede any rights and the need to look reasonable, not fanatic, not imbued with a crusading spirit. The organization and manning of the commission, all must have this balance. Not that we have much hope that the Iraqis will change their ways and be sweet and helpful, but we should at least avoid putting them in a belligerent mood straight away. They cannot very well think that the Security Council would modify 1284, but they would try to keep and read as much as possible into the ‘modalities’ paper of 1996 and stick to whatever other concessions they have seen on air operations, etc.

Early tomorrow I am taking a day flight to London to have a full day with the British FCO and Defence Ministry on Thursday. Then on to Stockholm on Friday.

Tuesday 1 August 2000. At Rosten

Last Tuesday (25 July) I and Dimitri Perricos were in Washington – a rather full day. It began with a luncheon in Georgetown. The talk was much about the just-failed negotiations between the Israelis (Ehud Barak) and the Palestinians (Yasser Arafat). Jerusalem was the stumbling block. I cannot help reflecting that as soon as people are convinced (by religion) that something is the command of God, it becomes very difficult to walk away from.

In the State Department was Tom Pickering, Undersecretary for Political Affairs, former Ambassador to Moscow, former UN Ambassador. He is really remarkable! Of course, he was in New York during much of the Iraqi affair, but he had many other matters before him and I am amazed that he seemed to know all Iraqi resolutions by number and by salient points. He seemed like a bit of a hardliner. Perhaps he did not want me to go away with the impression that the US was conciliant on any point re: Iraq. Yet he said he was not quite sure that UNMOVIC would ever get in. A hint that on-the-ground inspection was not indispensable, but toughness was. I would agree that no concessions should be made in the manner in which inspections are to be carried out – in order to get the Iraqis accept inspections. Pickering also agreed with my instinct not to travel to Iraq. Good!

Day flight to London on 26 July. Thursday 27 first meeting with the Defence Minister, Mr Hoon. Very well briefed. We agreed that a new situation was arising, when, at the end of August, UNMOVIC would be able to mount an inspection.

On to the FCO, where I had a short chat with the minister of state, Hain – who had seen me in New York at the time of the NPT review conference. He was the one who surprised me by asking if I should not go to Iraq. I could sense that he was pained by all the public pressure on ‘sanctions’ and felt that somehow, if we showed our interest in going in, the burden was more clearly on the Iraqis for not moving things forward. I explained I was sceptical. He asked why and I said Iraq would believe that I would not like to leave Baghdad empty-handed and would use this as a leverage. I should have said that if I were to go to Baghdad it would look as if I came to ask for something. I don’t. They should want inspections because that is the way they could have some trade and economic restrictions suspended.

I next saw the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, wrinkled but agile like a squirrel and tough-minded. I told him that I thought the political level had a role to play in explaining to the public that Iraq actually can sell as much oil as they want and that there are no restrictions on their purchase of food and medicines. Restrictions regarded weapons and dual-use items. If they accepted inspection, the import of dual-use articles would be easier. In the evening I saw people from the intelligence side.

And on Friday 28 July, I went to Stockholm and off to Öregrund and Rosten. We bathed both yesterday and today and it was really warm in the sun. Today, I chopped a lot of wood and Eva has been mowing the lawns. Tomorrow the BBC is going to call me at eleven. I also talked to Dimitri in New York.

Sunday 6 August 2000. Eva’s Birthday

A lovely day. No presents but I gave Eva breakfast and some roses at bedside. We picked blueberries. We walked around to the old boathouse place. The sheep were there. Fifteen of them. Last night we all had crayfish on the lawn that used to be the potato field. A new venture. Hardly any mosquitos. Göran phoned Eva from New York and Mårten from Canouan (in the Caribbean, where he was diving). Yesterday Eva and I (here at the Baltic Sea) took the aluminium boat to the islands. We saw a black adder and a heron and visited our old wild strawberry peninsula. Some tracks in swamps between the islands are mystifying. Rather narrow. No droppings. Hare? Fox? Hardly elk? We have sometimes seen elk walking between the islands in the past, but it was long ago. The sea eagles fly quite often over Rosten. Eva has been interviewed both in the Goteborgsposten and Svenska Dagbladet in connection with her birthday. Nice articles and very nice pictures of her.

Thursday 10 August 2000 at 21.10

Still light but you can feel the autumn is coming. It is only around 16 degrees (Celsius) in the daytime and 17 in the water. We had an excellent pike for dinner, given to us by Erik (nephew) yesterday. The eagles are visible rather often. Their sound is a pathetic squeak, incongruent with the majestic silhouette in the sky. Dimitri Perricos has phoned me every day from New York. The impression is that things are moving somewhat. The Iraqis are showing interest in Resolution 1284. They are looking for assurances on lots of things and trying to bargain for a number of things … There might be meetings in New York in connection with the UN celebration of the millennium early in September. It seems Tariq Aziz is coming.

On Monday, I shall go back to New York and there will be a heavy week ahead of the meeting of the College of Commissioners and my visit to Washington, where I shall meet both the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, and the White House Security Adviser, Sandy Berger. My new executive assistant, Olof Skoog, will accompany me.

Saturday 19 August 2000. New York

It has been a busy and frugal week. Soup and iced tea for dinner. Every evening at home reading and writing. Wednesday morning, I had the whole professional staff together and briefed them on how I look upon the current situation in which the world seems to be talking about the lifting of sanctions, while governments (including the Russian) seem to stick to the need for inspection and armament control in Iraq and the Iraqis themselves seem to be checking what kind of arrangements they might have under Res. 1284. It seems pretty clear that Tariq Aziz on his visit in Moscow was told that they would have to accept 1284. The point that interests them most is probably what kind of financial controls there would be under para. 33 of Res. 1284 if there were a suspension of restrictions.

Tonight I have been reading the chapter about UNSCOM in a new biography of Richard Butler. With Scott Ritter, the CIA and espionage it is a horribly complex picture one gets – whether true or not.

Sunday 20 August 2000 at 23.00

Got up early this morning. Took a one-hour walk in Central Park. Marvellous weather. In the afternoon I have worked on speeches for the College of Commissioners, mainly on the so-called ‘modalities’ of inspection. Difficult subject to tackle. But the document which shows how the modalities were applied in 1996–1998 is quite interesting. No abstract report but concrete narrative.

Eva is back in Stockholm. She has a long travelling season ahead of her: Rovaniemi, the Hague, London, Alaska, Tasmania and New Zealand. Then Christmas (with the family) in Colorado. Hope she gets her fill of the travel so that we can confine ourselves to Europe when I return … I am preparing for a trip to China and perhaps Malaysia and Bahrein in October.

Saturday 26 August 2000. New York

The past week lots of things happened. Visit to Washington Tue. 22. Went with my new executive assistant, Olof Skoog, to Washington. He has a sharp mind, diplomatic feeling, energy and is low-key in behaviour. I think he will be fine. Olof knows a lot of people in the various missions after several years in NY. This is an asset. He can scout and be a messenger. He is cautious.

Tuesday 29 August

On the Sunday I walked up to Göran’s and Bo’s apartment by seven in the evening. They were to come at 7.50 by train, but the train was a bit delayed. The cat was pleased to have me in the house. She had pulled out a couple of books, one of which was about selecting the right wines. Civilized cat … They had had a nice weekend far upstate in New York. Eva phoned from Rovaniemi where she is attending a meeting of parliamentarians. She was very pleased. Beautiful and useful.

Dagens Nyheter (a main newspaper in Stockholm) last week (Thursday?) had a nasty article about UNMOVIC and me. It says that the inspectors we have recruited were not ‘the best in the branch’. There were a number of misinterpretations and errors. I first suspected the Kay/Ahlmark source, but Ewen Buchanan guessed it was Ekéus (who had lectured the training course and seen some participants). I sent a letter to DN correcting some of the things in the article. One of the Editors in Chief contacted me and said they would take an abbreviated letter – but there would, of course, be some comment attached to it. Normal. A newspaper will hardly ever concede it was wrong. Nevertheless, it might be good that a lot of people I know will see that I refute the criticism.

Saturday 2 September 2000

Reuters made a TV interview with me on Tuesday 29, and it was OK. Still, I was amazed by some things. What really turned him on was my statement that we would not use SIGINT – electronic eavesdropping. I said I did not know what exactly UNSCOM had done, but there were long descriptions of such activities in a recent biography about Butler. I said I was not sure whether such activities were in line with what the Security Council had authorized. (Having read the OMV – Ongoing Monitoring and Verification – plan resolution I think one could probably defend the activity although the Council seems never to have focused on the issue.) Yet I felt this was too complex an activity for UMOVIC. The Reuters man (very experienced old hand) said I might be criticized for this position. So far there has been no negative comment. It might come – as examples of a ‘softer’ UNMOVIC. Nevertheless, I am convinced I did the right thing. There are no records of this activity in the UNSCOM archives! Nor does UNSCOM seem to have learnt anything which it could use in reports to the Security Council. The operation seems to have been under US/UK management – but under UNSCOM auspices! Piggybacking. Not so nice. We are authorized for inspection and monitoring – not espionage.

On Thursday (31 August), Kofi Annan asked me to see him. He was not sure whether he would be able to see Tariq Aziz during the millennium summit. Nevertheless, he asked me what I thought he should say. I said he might intimate his view that what still remained of the sanctions would not go away but for Iraq accepting 1284. That UNMOVIC was an opportunity. I am still inclined to think there will be a package.

President Clinton yesterday gave a major speech at Georgetown University, declaring that he would not go ahead with any deployment of national missile defence. He gave diplomacy, deterrence and defence as the US means to protect itself and the peace. One feature that struck me was the continued emphasis on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Curious that he did not directly refer to North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya. How can one avoid feeling the relevance of success/failure in the case of preventing Iraq from keeping or acquiring such weapons? If we fail in that case, how shall we fare in others?

Tuesday 5 September

I have been reading Ken Alibek’s Biohazard about the Soviet (and Russian) programme for biological weapons. Horrendous! They were said to aim especially for bacteria and viruses for which there were no vaccines. He says he had heard that ‘several’ Russian biological scientists had gone to Iraq and North Korea. He also reports on efforts to export large fermentation vessels from Russia to Iraq in 1995! Thus, indicating that Iraq even at that time had further ambitions in the biological weapons field and Russia was prepared to ignore the need for exporting only under the oil for food programme!

Today the UN millennium celebration started at a ceremony during which the Japanese peace bell would be rung. Kofi Annan gave a good speech and pushed a pole against the bell three times. Nice ring. Film and photo. On the way out he grabbed me, and he said Barak (Israel) had expressed concern about what Iraq could be planning. I said to Kofi that one idea often ignored was the zone free of weapons of mass destruction referred to in Resolutions 687 and 1284. Most people seem to think this is so distant and hypothetical as to be meaningless. I said I admitted it might be distant but not redundant. All countries consider their long-term strategic security. Iraq could hardly ignore the military capacity of Iran, Syria and Israel. Iranian missile, nuclear, chemical or biological capacity was bound to constitute incentives for Iraq to have such capacity. Efforts to prevent Iraq from getting such capacity must be coupled with efforts to prevent the emergence or (in the case of Israel) indefinite retention of such capacity. Kofi agreed that the regional aspect was very important. A package that would bring Iraq to accept 1284 should have some passing reference to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

Wednesday 6 September

Today was the big millennium summit at the UN. First Ave was blocked between 49 St and 42 and I had a hard time walking down 2nd Ave for all the policemen and police cars! However, I came down shortly after seven to join a breakfast ‘for foreign ministers’. I sat down with the Irish foreign minister. She said there was a strong pressure in Ireland about the lifting of sanctions. I met Maurice Strong. Maurice said the millennium summit was his idea (in a report about reform at the UN) and that was why he was invited. He talked most about his current pet project: the University of Peace in Costa Rica.

In the morning, I watched and listened to the General Assembly on the TV in my room. I have now been through the various texts and feel somewhat disappointed. Even Blair was not more than passable. Chirac was empty. Putin was specific but hardly eloquent. IAEA was the only organization he mentioned besides the UN! I was invited to the Secretary-General’s luncheon with the heads of state, this time held in the big delegates’ lounge. Sat between the foreign ministers of Burma and of Turkmenistan. Clinton’s speech of thanks at the lunch was excellent. He cited somebody stating that we are what the world made us, and in some cases worse (I wonder if he had himself in mind). In the case of Kofi Annan, he was also what the world made him, but even better. He also said that some people would characterize Annan as an ‘idealist’ and added: ‘good for you’. I liked that comment, because it reveals that Clinton, too, thinks that ‘idealism’ is positive. After the luncheon, in the general chaos reigning I did see some people. Amr Moussa, the current foreign minister of Egypt, caught me. He said they tried to tell the Iraqis how excellent I was but did not get a positive response. ‘They have problems with you.’ Well, they have problems with all who do not support them, like Meguid, me and Kofi Annan.

I met President Mbeki of South Africa. He said they had some influence on Iraq and promised that they would help UNMOVIC if they could; Tariq Aziz was talking to Dhanapala as I came past. He saw me at two metres’ distance, and I could sense how he wanted to avoid showing a sign of recognition; I also kept a straight face, not wanting to embarrass him.

I had a hard time moving against the current (with most guests going toward the Trusteeship Chamber for the photo). At one point I was in a spot between Clinton and Putin, stuck in the crowd. I did not try to take the opportunity to shake hands. Why should I? This, after all, is not tourism. Castro was also nearby, but, again, I did not approach him, though he might have recognized me. I had no business to transact. Tariq Aziz was there, looking somewhat frozen out, but I did not approach. Well, what a show!

Thursday 7 September

The show is soon over and next week the regular General Assembly begins. But today it was still in full swing! Tariq Aziz spoke a bit about US hegemony, but it was not venomous. He stressed respect for the Charter principles of ‘sovereign equality’ but somehow managed to forget to mention the ban on aggression. I went to Senegal’s reception for Arafat. I walked up to him and explained who I was and told him we had met in Algiers many years ago (at the celebration of Algeria’s fifteenth (?) anniversary). He looked expired. He has led a rough life and his current predicament cannot be easy – settling totally with Israel or letting it slip on account of Jerusalem.

The Norwegian ambassador came up to me and asked if I wanted to be introduced to the King of Norway. I followed the ambassador and was introduced to King Harald. I said I had a good Norwegian name – Blix – and added that my family had come from Norway at some stage during the sixteenth century, when it fled from the Danish tax men (fogdarna). Then we talked Iraq and I said I hoped Norway would get onto the Security Council. The King asked whether the job with Iraq was very difficult, and I answered that so long as we are not inside Iraq it was rather easy. We all laughed at that. With the King was also Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian prime minister (later Secretary-General of NATO) who is the son of my old colleague Thorvald Stoltenberg.

At five I left to go to the reception of President Clinton at the Metropolitan Museum. I walked up from 42 St, to 81! The checkpoint to get a pass for the reception was easy but I had to walk through almost the whole bottom floor of the Metropolitan to come to the reception. Endless rows of Greek sculptures and – as I neared the reception – endless rows of Egyptian mummies. Also, endless numbers of White House guides who urged you on. Eventually I landed in a beautiful huge room with water and a fountain and an Egyptian temple. Lots of people.

I ran into Dick Gardner, who told me that he would be a delegate to the coming General Assembly. I met Holbrooke and his charming and intelligent wife – who has written one book about Carl XIV Johan Bernadotte and one about Raoul Wallenberg. I had a short chat with Amr Moussa (foreign minister, Egypt). I also talked with the nice Israeli ambassador – who is an expert on French literature – and we agreed I should send him an official letter asking that they take up contact with my intelligence man, McIver. The loudspeaker kept announcing arrivals. The only ones who were missing were the hosts – Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Saturday 9 September at 08.15

A footnote to the Clintons’ reception at the Metropolitan Museum: Prime Minister Persson reported to the Swedish UN mission that he had, indeed, shaken hands with the President – after first standing in line for this memorable event for one and a half hours! He did not seem to have resented it, but he marvelled that President Putin of Russia had put up with the same treatment!! Horrible: I couldn’t see Clinton standing in line at the Kremlin?!

Yesterday, Friday 8 September, I had morning coffee with Mr William Morris and Mr Burhan Al-Chalabi of the Next Century Foundation. We met at the Crown Plaza hotel, because it is impossible to get visitors into the UN building during the Summit. We had a long talk. Al-Chalabi, who seems to have contacts with Tariq Aziz, clearly was sympathetic to a variety of Iraqi views, while Morris seemed to look for compromises everywhere. Al-Chalabi said that a great problem was that Iraq did not have confidence in the UN after the UNSCOM debacles. An effort was needed to sell Res. 1284 to Iraq and he seemed to think I should be part of it. I commented that a root problem was that Iraq needed to create confidence in the world that it was ridding itself of weapons of mass destruction. At the suggestion that it had seemed that very little was left, I said that there seemed to be a general view that by the end of 1998 the nuclear file had the fewest question marks and that the biological one had numerous ones. It was true that there would always be a residue of uncertainty (this was now generally admitted). It was a political question how much uncertainty the Security Council would tolerate. Perhaps it would have been wise to say in 1998 that the nuclear file was acceptable and to urge that other files needed to be brought to the same level. It was a fact, regrettably, that panels of experts, both UNSCOM and non-UNSCOM, had agreed that there were many contradictions and question marks in the biological file.

Who has the burden of proof of existence or non-existence of WMD? I brought up the arguments about the ‘burden of proof’ and said I thought it was misleading. True, there would always be a residue, which not even Iraq could eliminate. However, they had all the personnel under their authority and could turn to them for clarifications and they had all the archives. It was easier for Iraq to reach for the bottom of the barrel than for UNMOVIC to do so. Further, it was misleading to say that UNMOVIC had the burden of proof and that Iraq should be ‘acquitted’ if UNMOVIC did not prove there remained something. ‘Acquittal’ in criminal law was based on the idea of a presumed innocence in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Here, however, there was a need for confidence that Iraq had no more WMD and confidence would not arise from any presumptions but from laborious and credible demonstration of a long-standing programme.

We discussed the concept of ‘cooperation’ and I said it did not easily lend itself to definition. However, we would not ask Iraq for things that were undoable. We are reasonable people and will act reasonably.

We also talked about the concepts of ‘unresolved disarmament questions’ and ‘key disarmament issues’. Which were they? I said that the ‘key disarmament issues’ would have to be defined by us in the work programme that we were to present to the Security Council sixty days after having begun work in Iraq. As the programme is subject to the approval of the Council, we cannot predict the list of issues and Iraq cannot know it until after it has opened up under Res. 1284. As to ‘unresolved disarmament questions’, this was something we had already begun to work on. We could not have started earlier because we wanted to have new staff on board to look at the issue with fresh eyes.

What was meant by ‘begun work in Iraq’ in Res. 1284? Our interlocutors insisted that a dialogue with Iraq was needed and implied that I should help to sell Res. 1284 to the Iraqi government. I said that was not my job. My door was open at all times, however. But I was sure they did not want to come. Indeed, how could they? Their rejection of 1284 would begin to look undermined if it became known that they talked to me – even though it might only be about interpretations of 1284. What about private meetings? What about presidential palaces? They had been inspected and there was nothing in them. What would be the use of inspecting again? I explained that it was very important that there were no sanctuaries.

I said I thought what UNMOVIC stood for and would do, would gradually become clear as the organization was built up. The structure became known last spring when we submitted our report to the Security Council. The recruitment and staffing are now known in large measure. I had said all along that we needed both fresh eyes and institutional memory. On one point I had made it public that I would refrain from an activity which UNSCOM reportedly undertook, namely SIGINT. I would not authorize electronic eavesdropping. I considered it too difficult for us and I was not quite sure that the Security Council resolutions were meant to authorize it.

Our interlocutors said there would be a need for something face-saving. I said I can see that. The most important point, presumably, was what kind of financial arrangements would follow a suspension of sanctions. There was not much talk about that problem. I could also see that some other points would be of importance. All these items were outside the purview of the Executive Chairman – and also of the Secretary-General. What I could do was to continue building up the organization as it was contemplated by the Security Council and the Amorim report. It was not only to list ‘unresolved disarmament issues’. We had to put together a new ‘inspectors’ handbook’. Certainly, we would use a lot of UNSCOM procedures, where these had worked well. No need for change for the sake of change.

Stockholm. Sunday 17 September 2000

Landed in Vienna last Wednesday. Stayed at the Country Inn Hotel on Wagramer Strasse. On Thursday we interviewed a number of Jordanian candidates for inspection jobs in UNMOVIC. Jordan is the only Arab country that has nominated. Perhaps we should try to approach Morocco. My old friend Ben Moussa (who was ambassador in Vienna) seems to be head of the international organizations department in Rabat. Had a long talk with Mohamed ElBaradei. He seems somewhat soft – sanctions cannot go on forever … However, I think he appreciated that I want to share with him what rules we want to follow in inspections. It was an amiable talk, especially when we talked about our children and our wives.

Friday 22 September 2000. Back in the New NY Apartment

Dinner on tuna fish salad. Not yet managed to work the TV. At least I can now use the microwave oven. Presented UNMOVIC’s second quarterly report in the Security Council this morning and it went very well. OK, we are in the easy phase. Build-up and no confrontations with Iraq yet. However, everything related to Iraq can be inflamed and avoiding that seems to be a feat. All in the Council praised our ‘professionalism’. Must stand in some contrast to the ‘amateurism’ of the past?

Today in the Security Council I was impressed that all members pronounced themselves in favour of implementation of Res. 1284. The French, who staunchly stated that Iraq should not believe there was any way out of sanctions except 1284, pleaded nevertheless for some ‘clarifications’ of the resolution. The US (Cunningham) said any amendments to 1284 were out of the question. Iraq knew perfectly well what it had to do. Tunisia pleaded for a dialogue, and suggested the Secretary-General might be the intermediary. The Russians explained that Iraq would be deaf to 1284 until some central issues were solved: the bombing of Iraq was illegal and must end. They must also feel convinced that there really could be suspension. So long as someone talked about overthrowing the government or supporting internal revolt, one could not expect Iraq to come around.

I was asked to comment at the end and said that one ambition of UNMOVIC was to help maintain agreement in the Security Council. When the Council was united it was strong. The College of Commissioners was an instrument which could be used to attaining consensus. I said that while Iraq was negative to Res. 1284, at the same time it showed interest in it. We had seen the close interpretation of the Res. presented at the Kuala Lumpur conference. Some Iraqi concerns regarded paragraphs which related to UMOVIC, e.g. what was meant by ‘cooperation?’ And what by ‘key disarmament issues?’ While we could not clarify which were the ‘key DA issues’, as this would be done much later and be subject to decision by SC, ‘the unresolved DA issues’ were a matter we were already working on and results would be coming within months. ‘Cooperation’ did not easily lend itself to definition, but we had said that we would not ask anything which was not ‘doable’. However, we reserved to ourselves to judge whether something was doable. Iraq should also see that we tried to build up a respectable UN body and we had said that we would not do anything to ‘harass’, ‘humiliate’ or ‘provoke’. However, again we would not leave it to Iraq to determine if something was ‘harassing’. They might well consider the whole inspection system ‘harassment’.

It is a relief to have this Council meeting behind us – even though I fully realize that we are now in the easy phase. In Stockholm the press asked me when I thought we would be able to go to Iraq. I replied that many people thought it would not be before the US election and that might be a good guess. It was interesting – but not really surprising – that the Russian (it was Gatilov, not Lavrov) did not say anything about the recruitment of personnel. Not a word about Nikita Smidovich and Igor Mitrokhin, whom they wanted me to fire earlier.

I take it that unpleasant issue is set to rest, and I have excellent use for Nikita and Igor, as they are very knowledgeable.

Saturday 23 September

Gloomy weather. Grey and drizzling. I have noted possible elements in a dialogue with Iraq – whoever will undertake it. Not me. They may be good to have for memory and for me to print if I want to make use of them.

Tuesday 26 September 2000

Yesterday I sent a printout of the ‘catalogue’ paper to Kofi Annan. Today I discussed the subject of a ‘package’ with Jeremy Greenstock, the UK ambassador. He thought it was important to get a dialogue going about the implementation of Res. 1284. Otherwise, the resolution might be drowned in all the talk about the lifting of sanctions. He did not say how the dialogue should be promoted. He did not think that Kofi Annan would move, because he has burnt his fingers twice on Iraq. Nor did he expect that I would take initiatives. I explained that I declare myself ready and happy to receive Iraqis and discuss the contents of the resolution. But even without such visits, our interpretation of it is gradually becoming known to Iraq through our communications with our College of Commissioners and our action in recruitment, etc. I said I did not like the idea – advanced by UK minister Hain – of going to Baghdad, because it would look like a ‘position de demandeur’. If they did not wish to see me here during the General Assembly, why should I rush down there? We could meet in NY – or in Geneva. I had the feeling that the Brits would not mind if we made a bit more noise to remind people that UNMOVIC is there. But not too much. Ragida Dergham, the NY commentator of the Al Hayat, has written two long articles in which she deplores the lack of dialogue and criticizes all sides and suggests action by all – including Kofi and me. Interesting that she urges a ‘give and take’, a mechanism and a memorandum of understanding. Precisely the things that Tariq Aziz stress in his talk with the UK Next Century Foundation.

Thursday 28 September

Today I had lunch with Ragida Dergham – the ‘Druze missile’ – and Ewen Buchanan. She continued to search the horizon for initiatives at a dialogue. Tried to assert that the sanctions pressure was lost. Iraq was the only state that had big oil reserves and the world needs to deal with the Iraqis. Even very moderate Iraqis had been very disappointed in her first interview with me, in particular when I had said that I could not predict in what terms I would report to the Security Council about Iraqi cooperation with UNMOVIC. I replied that under Res. 687 it was clearly the Council which ‘determined’ whether Iraq had been freed of its WMDs. Under Res. 1284, too, members of the Council might disagree with my characterization of the cooperation and veto a suspension.

She tried to imply that the inspection of presidential sites must be laid aside. I said the resolution talked about ‘unrestricted’ access and the MOU of Kofi Annan had confirmed that this also meant presidential sites and had, indeed, laid down a special procedure. How could one then forget them? Another matter was how often one would need to inspect them. I talked about the need for strategic equilibrium and the need to keep the long-term goal of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction alive. She agreed but did not seem to be very impressed. At a Swiss dinner tonight for the Harvard Law School I had a chance to see Kofi Annan momentarily. He had read my paper about (a catalogue of) elements in an Iraq package, and we should talk about it when he and I are back after next week’s travels. The Russian ambassador, Lavrov, said he was glad to see me. He had planned to visit me, but this place was even better. He said that the Iraqis really were interested in clarifying a number of things about 1284. They had referred to Boutros Ghali’s MOU in connection with Oil for Food. It had taken six months to negotiate, but it had stuck. The Russians had said that 1284 was a different matter. The Iraqis’ first question was not the financial arrangements after suspension. I said that I was at all times ready to discuss – but not to make agreements. Moreover, Iraq would gradually see how we interpreted the resolution. I also made statements that should interest them. I had said that we would never have the aim of harassing, humiliating or provoking them, and I had said we would not go for electronic eavesdropping. Lavrov said that these things should be appreciated by Iraq.

Wednesday 4 October 2000. Stockholm

Left New York last Friday (29 September) and arrived rather tired on Saturday. Eva and I did some shopping and we went to Mårten for a drink before dinner. At seven when darkness has fallen the view from Mårten’s twenty-second floor of the city and its lights is uplifting. When I compare the view from my thirtieth floor in New York what strikes me is greater homogeneity of the cityscape in Stockholm. Houses are generally six floors here, while in New York you have a great variety – from six to sixty.

On Sunday the weather was still glorious early autumn. We took the car and went to Angarn lake with sandwiches and tea in the rucksack. We walked all around the lake, about two and a half hours. There were still lots of migratory birds. Thousands of geese flew up and seemed to try unsuccessfully to form a V. There were also a few herons and lots of lapwings and ducks that I could not identify. Some ornithologists with huge field glasses or cameras and a few Sunday walkers. What a privilege to have a place like this within twenty-five minutes of our parking space.

Yesterday, Tuesday, I gave a talk about Iraq and UNMOVIC at SIPRI. Rolf Ekéus turned up and sat through it. After the meeting he told me that there had been attempts between the US and France – Pickering and Errera – to come to relations, but it just got worse. They had moved the talks to a lower level and had asked Ekéus to act as a ‘moderator’. He would go to Paris in October for this purpose. Tomorrow (5 October) I shall brief the King at four o’clock and then get the car and drive alone to Gräsö (the Blix family summer place). And on Friday we have the year 2000 asado (barbecue).

Sunday 8 October 2000. New York

Back in New York again. Now eight o’clock in the evening with my body at two in the morning.

The briefing of the King (on 5 October) took thirty to forty minutes. I arrived before he did and was received by the Marshall of the Court. The King was just back from the Olympics in Australia. I had prepared some points. However, I quickly understood that he preferred a conversation, and I delivered what I had had in mind in this manner. At the end I mentioned to him that I had briefed his daughter – Crown Princess Victoria – and that she was very alert. The sofa in the audience chamber is horrible. He sits in one corner and the briefer in the other. Perhaps it is deliberate?

From the King, I went to our garage and took out the car. Made it to the eight o’clock ferry. At Rosten, they had left the lights on at the garage and the cart was there, so I could move up with all my gear.

I work hard (on Friday morning 6 October) to make a huge fire with logs to get adequate glowing charcoals for the grilling of the lamb. It was lovely to be out among trees again. The grass was tall and between my feeding the fire with logs I used the lawnmower and cut the grass on the ‘lagårdsplan’ (lawn) and in front of our house. A bit chaotic, as usual, but all participants get plenty of meat and gratin and salad, cheese and cake. I had written some rhymes which I read at the dessert and other family members similarly presented some verses. I like that. Keeping up the tradition of a little effort at an intellectual content – and not just food and drink. After the misty and rainy Friday the night was delightfully starlit. At Gräsö you really see it. We did not leave until the afternoon on Saturday and made the four o’clock ferry. Nice evening in Stockholm. The flight today was uneventful. Far from a full plane. Eva should be at Anchorage now, staying overnight before she catches the plane for Barrow. I hope she got to see the same marvellous sight of Greenland as I did today. We flew over the highest mountains, some 4,000 metres, along the southern coast. Could see the glaciers emptying into the sea. Magnificent sunshine. Snow, ice, not a single soul, not a ski track.

Saturday 14 October 2000. New York

An uneventful but nevertheless tiring week. Several briefings of groups: Norwegian and Danish parliamentarians. Also – closer to the operational scene – briefing of the ambassadors of the Gulf Council (Saudi, Oman, Bahrein, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates). The week has been dominated by the violence in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Iraq is positioning itself as the vanguard of the Palestine cause. It hopes to be accepted into the brotherhood and to get it more firmly on its side for a quashing of the sanctions. While more planes are landing in Baghdad there is little to suggest that the sanctions which mostly regard oil, could collapse. I therefore think that the Iraqi interest in 1284 and efforts to get commitments to as much as possible for an acceptance of the resolution will continue.

Eva has attended a meeting of the Arctic Council in Barrow, Alaska this week. She phoned me on a miserable line two or three days ago. They were not allowed to go outside the hotel for the risk of polar bears. An exotic conference place!

Saw the second debate between Bush and Gore this week. It was extremely polite. Both had evidently been admonished not to be aggressive. So, it was on the dull side … Gore does not show one iota of a sense of humour. But he does show commitment. He stands for something. Whether Bush has any convictions of his own is doubtful. I have the feeling that he just floats along with what the Republican mainstream may wish and tries to avoid being stuck with some extreme position.

Sunday 15 October 2000

Still nice sunny, mild autumn weather. I have a lot of homework to do. Only managed to write a plan for the UNMOVIC handbook yesterday to replace the more militarily sounding ‘standard operating procedures’. Query whether guidelines should be in injunction paragraph form or in narrative.

Eva spoke to me from Seattle yesterday midday. She was to take a look at the city before the evening plane to Copenhagen where she had to change. I hope she succeeded in getting an upgrade to business with her bonus coupons. In an hour we should be able to talk on the phone again. It really makes you feel how small the globe is getting when you ponder a call yesterday to the west coast of America and one this afternoon to the eastern part of Western Europe! I told Göran that I had read some rhymes at the asado celebration. We are not very good at being solemn with each other. The verses allow you to insert solemn praise in a form that marks that you are stepping out of the usual. Adding humour and poor rhymes makes it easier. To give a solemn prose speech of praise is much more difficult.

Tuesday 31 October 2000

Back here (in New York) today after a twelve-day trip around the world.

I left NY on Friday 20 October by direct flight to Tokyo. Nearly fourteen hours. Next morning departure for flight to Beijing. Sen Pang and Olof Skoog met me at the new airport and took me to town. Stayed at the Hilton. The mobile phone did not work in China, nor in Japan! I used the ordinary phone and reached Eva in Hobart, Tasmania. She had been rather tired, having flown in one go Stockholm–London–Singapore–Brisbane–Hobart.

Here is what I noted while in Beijing (22–24 October): the new terminal is built in current cosmopolitan style. No Chinese flavour. Along the road from the airport to town now lots of high-rising apartment houses. I remember in the past there were endless rows of tents for people who had lost their homes in a big earthquake. On the main roads there used to be thousands of cyclists. No longer. They seem to have a lane of their own. The Hilton, where I am staying, is excellent. Rooms in good taste. I marvel that they serve FRENCH butter and ENGLISH marmalade. We went to the Beijing opera and saw something rather boring about the eight immortals. Only in the last act did one get the mixture of acrobatics and theatre that I remembered as exciting. Most of the audience were tourists. They say it is a dying art. Too slow for the young. I remember from 1964, when Eva and I were in Canton (Guangzhou), that we went to an amusement park. A show of some uplifting Communist theme about good social conduct had few spectators but the show about an emperor and his many concubines, all in glittering clothes, had a large enthusiastic crowd. No more. Neither draws a crowd now.

The talks were very successful. The Chinese had been furious with Butler but became quite supportive. Said Tariq Aziz was to come before end of year. Felt sympathy with Iraq but wanted implementation of 1284. My long acquaintance with Qian Quiqian helped but the talks with the vice foreign minister Wang were also very good. The scheduled talk with the foreign minister fell out of the programme because he was taken by meetings with Chirac who was there after the European–Asian talks in Seoul. On the last morning they had arranged for me to have acupuncture – at the hotel. A mild professor came with an interpreter. He examined my legs, made me bend them and concluded that the nerve was damaged on the left leg (correct). Needles were stuck on the back of my left leg. Like mosquito bites. An electric current was led through the leg, apparently to stimulate the nerves. No pain really. He also did ‘cupping’, which consisted in a small cup being applied to create an underpressure on various spots. Reminded me a bit of the past Swedish practice of letting blood – but there was no blood lost in this case. Seemed more doubtful than acupuncture but did not do any harm. We went to a Taoist temple for some sight-seeing. Rather dull. Scattered women prayed to a variety of deities. Monks strolled around. The most remarkable feature were signs in English where the division of words was completely unconventional, like Gr-acious, d-ivine, etc.

On Tuesday 24 October on to Tokyo. Stayed at the New Otani. Room 16 F in the Tower. Lovely view of gardens. Much cheaper than Okura and others. Sushi bar one of the best in Tokyo. Felt like a cat that had had its fill of raw fish. Talks at defence agency. Japan wants to contribute to UN peacekeeping operations and to us, as well. Talk with a vice foreign minister (member of parliament). Interview with NHK television.

On Thursday 26 October

Singapore Airlines from Narita to Singapore. First Class. Never seen one like that before. Each chair separate and a kind of wall on one side – even when you were in the middle. Like a little compartment to yourself. We stayed at the Westin Plaza because the Foreign Ministry was in the same complex. Superb. Refined taste everywhere. Discreet colours. Soft touch. Good restaurant. We went to Raffles to have a Singapore sling. Sat in their courtyard which has a strong colonial touch with huge fans and buildings with the hotel rooms and arcades surrounding the yard. Talk with the foreign minister, Mr Jayakuma, a law professor. Round-table discussion with desk officers. I think we might get a staff member from their terrorist defence agency.

Saturday 28 October. Kuala Lumpur

We had planned it so that we would have talks in Singapore on the Friday when Muslim Kuala Lumpur is closed. And talks in KL on Saturday. It turned out the Malaysians work only half a day on the Saturday. Tried in vain to phone Noramly bin Muslim (who was DDG (Deputy Director General) for technical assistance in IAEA before Qian came). The present head of the Malaysian Nuclear Agency got wind of my presence and came over for a chat

Hotel Shangri La was rather old and mediocre. The centre of KL is now a modern agglomeration of Asian skyscrapers, including the famous highest in the world twin tower. No longer the picturesque open market where we bought copied luxury good many years ago. Now a city not for strolling but for moving by car. Talk with the permanent secretary in the foreign ministry. Thereafter, talk with Mr Halim, former ambassador in Vienna and now the Secretary of the Government and as such the most senior civil servant in the country. The mobile phone worked well both in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. Talked to Eva in Hobart, Tasmania and Mårten in Stockholm.

On Sunday 29 October we went from Kuala Lumpur to Bahrein via Bangkok. It took the whole day to go from KL to Bahrein with a change at Bangkok’s old airport. We were met by friendly foreign ministry head of UN bureau (former perm. rep. NY), UNDP res. rep., Abdul Gader (nice and competent Sudanese) and UNSCOM rep. Patulis. Taken to Holiday Inn where I was given suite of three large rooms for the price of eighty dollars. UNSCOM was a huge customer, and the hotel is a warm supporter of inspections in Iraq. In any case it was good. Security guard. The city – an island – has some 500,000 inhabitants. Lives on oil and a lot of Saudi tourists, who come to enjoy the more liberal climate (drinks) and to play golf. Lots of hotels. On the Monday the programme was full and well organized. UN res. rep. had done good job. He had warned against any media appearance, as relations with Iraq are sensitive and Bahrein does not wish to be seen to be too energetic in going after Iraq. The agreement about our field office is nothing they want to advertise too much. Talk with the Foreign Minister. He was rather firm on the need for inspections in Iraq – as indeed they were in their speech in the GA of the UN. He seemed genuinely positive towards accepting a field office of UNMOVIC – on the understanding that it was fully independent from the US. I assured him there would be no more Gateway.

Tuesday 31 October. Bahrein–New York

Departure by Gulf Air around two in the morning for London. Slept a good deal. Arrival in London very early in the morning. United Airlines lounge. Talked to Eva on the mobile. She was still in Tasmania. Then off to New York. Went to the office for a while in the afternoon.

Thursday 2 November

New York. Talk with SG Kofi Annan. He is going to the Gulf, and I briefed him on my views as to which chips are relevant in any possible future deal under which Iraq would accept inspection – no bombing, no-fly zones, non-intervention, air traffic, financial arrangements in connection with suspension of sanctions, etc. All outside UNMOVIC and outside SG ambit as well. Within UNMOVIC and 1284 sphere: definitions of ‘cooperation’, ‘key disarmament issues’, timetable, etc.

Friday 3 November. New York

Departure by Swissair for Geneva in the evening.

Monday 6 November from Geneva to Paris. No time to go to hotel but directly to Quai d’Orsay and talk with M. Paganon, head of UN bureau. Thereafter (Ambassador) Errera and then on to Ministry of Defence and a round table headed by M. Brichambeau, nice Conseiller d’Etat, former legal adviser of foreign ministry. Lots of friends in common. The French attitude is helpful. Staying Hotel de France, like last time. Really very modest. Amazing. You get a nice dinner almost anywhere here. No diners, dumps. But we learnt brasseries are where you go for decent food at low prices.

Tuesday 7 November

Over one hour car ride past St Cloud and beyond Versailles to the Thomson campus, where our training course (for sixty participants) took place. A long lecture which was partly designed to contain responses to questions we know the Iraqis are posing. As the lecture is not a restricted document it will get around. In fact, we had sent it to the French and Russians last Friday and to all other members of the Security Council. I think the lecture went down well. Reception in the evening in the Armed Services Club. All the participants. I have hardly felt Paris so lovely before although the weather was foggy, drizzling, cool. The long perspectives, the houses of the same height, the homogeneity, gave a harmonious solid stable impression. Not an eighty-storey tower next to a brownstone house. Testimony to a strong central power able to enforce town planning.

Wednesday 8 November. Paris–Moscow

Met at Sheremetova by Nikita Zhukov. Staying at the ARBAT hotel – near the foreign ministry Stalinist skyscraper. This was the hotel where Morris Rosen and I stayed in 1986 when we came for the Chernobyl accident. It was then reserved for the Central Committee. Old style but OK and not expensive.

Thursday 9 November. Moscow

No programme in the morning. We walked to the Pushkin Gallery which was only fifteen minutes away. Marvellous van Goghs and Gauguins and Monets. I was particularly taken by two van Goghs, one is the prison yard with grey-blue prisoners getting their daily walk. Around them you see the high walls of the prison. An enclosure. The other is a lovely light green picture of fields. I loved a Monet painting of a rock at sea with marvellous blue waves around it. (Later seen at the Metropolitan the same rock but not the wonderful blue water of the Moscow painting.) Lunch with Sven Hirdman, Swedish ambassador and old friend. The Embassy is splendid and Sven most knowledgeable and capable. Meeting with Minatom minister Adamov, who told us about the Russian ideas for a new type of reactor which had a closed fuel cycle, hardly any waste, nearly inherent safety and proliferation-proof. How the world would get to it, he did not say. I congratulated him on their inventiveness. Few other countries devote much thinking to the nuclear future. I said perhaps the greens would go along with some new line in nuclear. It might save their faces. But the thing has to be sold. Putin’s sudden proposal in the General Assembly was not the best way. I recommended the G8 as a better forum.

In the evening the Institute for Chemical Analysis headed by Professor Petronin, father of our staff member Mrs Svetlana Outkina. Briefing about their capacity for analysis of samples of chemical weapons. Twenty million dollars lab donated by the US. Fine. ‘Refreshments’ after. Turned out to be lots of vodka and some bread, cucumber, tomatoes, etc. Many toasts and our host sang for us. Anton, husband of Svetlana, interpreted into good American. He was the head of one department. So, the whole family has benefited first from the build-up of the Russian chemical weapons programme and now from the dismantling of the whole thing. Not bad. They seem most knowledgeable. The old labs were in decrepit buildings. It really looked 1920. Actually part of it had been a brandy distillery long ago.

Friday 10 November. Moscow

Round table in the foreign ministry. Vice minister Ordzhonikidze, Ambassador Lavrov et al. A somewhat arrogant and flippant beginning, but it got nicer and friendlier. Much talk about the suffering of the Iraqis and the illegality of US/UK bombing and no-fly zones. Lunch in the ministry mansion. Lively discussion. Lavrov said everybody cheats under disarmament agreements. I protested. Talk with foreign minister Ivanov. More serious. And listening. He is off to Baghdad on Monday. Somehow it seems a strange time to persuade the Iraqis to accept Res. 1284 when they are high on the conflict in the Middle East and seem to believe they can get the sanctions to crumble by themselves. Snow and ice. Traffic chaos. The car took us directly from the talks to the airport. I nearly missed the plane. Total absence of traffic discipline but our driver – from the UN ILO (International Labor Organization) – was excellent.

Saturday 11 November. Stockholm

Wonderful to be home in our apartment. Walk in Lill-Jansskogen.

Monday 13 November. Back in New York

At the office in the afternoon. Plenty to complete on documents for the College of Commissioners. I am appalled how indifferent – or unaware – the technical people are about fuzzy language. Eva phoned from Christchurch. Her hiking tour around the South Island of New Zealand had been marvellous. Mostly excellent weather and fantastic views. Now waiting to fly to the Antarctic. I am happy for her.

Saturday 18 November, New York

I hope Eva is now underway! She phoned me this morning, again from Christchurch. They had left by a Hercules jet yesterday and flown about four hours and had one and a half hours left when they turned around. ‘White-out’ at the landing place. So, they made eight hours of flying – in very uncomfortable seats – and got back to the starting point after midnight. She will hang on for two days more but thereafter she will have to abandon the trip. She cannot be away indefinitely from her office in Stockholm.

Today, at Metropolitan Museum and an hour and a half on the twentieth-century European painters – van Gogh, Monet, Cezanne. It is their paintings that catch the astronomical prices at auctions. Why is that? They please the eye. They give us nature as we like to have it – and don’t always get. Sunny. Colourful. Not much of the dark side of reality. I love it, too. There is one painting at the Met which I always like to return to. Lepage’s painting of Jeanne d’Arc. I am unsure of the symbolism of the painting. The woman looks like a beautiful young peasant. The remarkable thing is that the picture appears to be three-dimensional. She stands in the foreground and there is clear space between her and the background! I know no other painting that creates such a strong feeling of depth. Two weeks ago in Moscow at the Pushkin gallery I saw another large painting by Lepage and the same woman. The three-dimensional effect was there, too, but not at all as strong.

The vote counting in Florida in the US presidential election is still going on. By now people – and I too – are tired of watching all the turns. Yet I certainly think that all votes should be checked if there is reason to believe that there have been significant errors.

Thursday 23 November. Thanksgiving

I and Olof Skoog saw the SG as scheduled. He confirmed what we had assumed, namely, that the Iraqis suggested a free (no preconditions) dialogue with the UN, while the SG would be bound by all UN resolutions. He said such a dialogue had occurred earlier with them (I think on the oil for food). He was aware what points interested them and that most of these concerned matters he could not deliver. Nevertheless, he has a task force on Iraq headed by Dhanapala (undersecretary for disarmament), which could explore matters with Iraq. The Iraqis did not want him to be accompanied by Vorontsov (dealing under Res. 1284 with missing Kuwaitis) or me. I said I thought it was probably an advantage that I was not involved. It is far better that these matters be discussed internally in UNMOVIC and in the College of Commissioners (with the P5 and others).

A point that is puzzling is why the Iraqis seem eager to get into a dialogue at the present time. My guess is that while there will be sympathy in public opinion in many countries (not just Arab ones) for a speedy timetable, there will be no great support for great leniency on inspections. Our position should be that we will do a ‘professional inspection job’.

Why are the Russians so eager? They complain that they lose a lot of export opportunities. However, they are not doing badly under the oil for food. Perhaps the Russians are eager just because they want to be seen by the Iraqis as their most loyal friends. Why are the British so eager? They have not been sufficiently energetic in explaining that Iraq can import a lot for today’s oil proceeds. Perhaps all have an interest in sounding eager while none is eager? Well, I think the Iraqis want to get out of the financial control even though these controls allow them to put the blame on the US for all the shortcomings in the country. They are proud and feel good about the public support they have in the Arab world (for a lifting of sanctions) and the financial controls remain a humiliation. However, they may not be likely to get a free hand on these resources even in the case of a suspension.

For UNMOVIC there are no problematic choices at the present time. We should simply prepare for action without much noise. Seek consensus in the College on timetables and inspection rules and build up staff and logistics. We have concentrated on experts on the various weapons. We shall need interpreters, communications people, logistics people. We should probably plan for specialized training courses for such people. Perhaps also to have a separate roster for them.

Saturday 25 November 2000

Eva phoned from Christchurch and Auckland. She had spent three days at the New Zealand base in the Antarctic. One day was fine and they made several helicopter tours. The other two were windy and they could not go out. The American base was three kilometres away. She flew back on an American plane. Ten hours and no toilet (for women). Going back now through Los Angeles. Should phone me this afternoon.

Sunday 26 November 2000

Rain all last night and still grey and steady rain. I had hoped Eva would phone from Los Angeles or Seattle, but she might have tried in vain when I was out. Mårten phoned to inquire when she would arrive in Stockholm. He planned to meet her.

Sunday Night. 26 November 2000

Sweet Mårten went to Arlanda and waited for four planes from Copenhagen and gave up. I was mistaken. Eva came from Los Angeles to London and from London to Stockholm, arriving around 8 p.m. She was tired but not exhausted. Had slept a good deal over the Pacific. Nice she is safely back.

Jimmy Wang (friend ever since student days at Columbia University in the mid 1950s) phoned tonight from Washington. Jimmy and Chungling (his wife) are coming to New York 10 to 15 or 16 Dec. I suggested they stay to 16 and we could all have dinner on 15, which is the day Eva arrives. Dear Mårten, it was nice to have you here. I hope you will have a nice week in Belize.

The past week has been a lively one on the Iraqi issue. We had the College of Commissioners here from Monday to Wednesday. The atmosphere and chemistry are still good. However, there is a big risk that we shall lose the US member, Robert Einhorn, assistant secretary for non-proliferation. With a new administration he will have to tender his resignation. The subject that interested us most was that of a ‘timetable’ once Iraq accepts inspections again.

On Tuesday I shall go to Washington and meet relevant Americans (Pickering, Einhorn, Welch, Gary Samore et al.) at a luncheon with Jan Eliasson (Swedish ambassador). Perhaps they cannot say much about what the US administration will do, but I can certainly express a few opinions. A worrisome feature is that many seem innocently (?) to assume that if Iraq just accepts Res. 1284 and inspection, the suspension of sanctions will happen automatically in six, seven, nine or ten months. I have warned against the assumption that accepting the resolution is like stepping on the first step of an escalator which takes you automatically to the floor of suspension. They have to cooperate in all respects with us and the IAEA for 120 days and make progress on key disarmament tasks. I can easily see that we shall be under pressure to testify positively after those 120 days. But I can also see that Iraq will be under some pressure to behave well to us during those days. I have some difficulty in understanding the Russians and the French trying so hard to accommodate Iraqi wishes: to get a premature definition of ‘key disarmament tasks’ and to define ‘cooperation’. They will tell you that they are very unsure that Iraq will accept the resolution otherwise. It is true that the Iraqi regime does not suffer much under the sanctions, but I think it is pretty clear that it is bargaining in the bazaar. It does not show itself to be anxious. Nor should the other side. It has long been evident that Iraq wants to go by Res. 1284. They just want to squeeze out as many advantages as they can from that step. An important point hardly discussed is whether a suspension – or, indeed, lifting – of sanctions would lead to better conditions for the Iraqi civilian population. People seem to urge the lifting of sanctions which are already gone! After all Iraq can now sell as much oil as it can pump and buy as much food and other humanitarian items as it wants. What guarantees are there that they would not, if they were free to use oil proceeds as they like, acquire more dual-use articles to help their armament production?

After the visit in Washington we – Olof Skoog and I – shall take the train back to NY and then fly to Paris in the evening. Give a closure speech to the trainees at our course in Paris and fly home to Stockholm for the weekend. Sunday family dinner (Mårten should be back from Belize that afternoon). Monday to Oslo to brief them (they will be in the Security Council as of Jan. 2001 and chair the sanctions committee). Then back to Stockholm Monday evening and a brief breakfast with Torvald Stoltenberg Tuesday morning before we go back to NY.

Tuesday 12 December 2000

Back from Stockholm this afternoon. Skoog and I took the train to Washington last Tuesday (5 Dec.). Went to the magnificent (Swedish) residence which Boheman (former Swedish Washington ambassador) once bought (for $160,000). Jan (Eliasson) had invited Mr Rydell and Gary Samore (both from the Security Adviser’s office). Rydell has handled Iraq. Gary is known to me for several years from IAEA matters. Bob Einhorn and David Welch were also there. The luncheon began with an introduction by me and then comments from our American colleagues. It was clear that they did not like the SG’s initiative to start a dialogue with Iraq. (I said there was a risk that an Iraqi wish list might get a lot of publicity and support from France and Russia.) Einhorn cautioned me not to emphasize a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in such a way that Iraq could use it as a condition for their own disarmament. I said I talked about the zone as a follow-up to the disarmament in Iraq. The resolutions talk about this work in Iraq as a step toward a zone.

Wednesday morning 6 December back to New York by the metroliner. We went directly to the office in icy hard wind. In the evening Skoog and I left by Air France for Paris. A late plane. We arrived late lunchtime in Paris Thursday 7 Dec. and were met by Alice Hecht and car and driver. We slept a few hours in the afternoon. In the evening, a walk in the neighbourhood. We had an excellent chateaubriand at a somewhat touristic little place. All meat was advertised as ‘Argentinian’ to calm people against the ‘mad cow’ fear which now grips France.

Friday 8 December

By car to a lovely castle owned by Thomson industries in the Versailles region. Conclusion of training course. Speech by me. Certificates handed over. Before all this a walking tour through the marvellously restored castle. Very tasteful. Wonderful textiles. I think my pep talk was useful. The participants get the feeling that we attach importance to their training. Directly to the airport and SAS to Stockholm. Not much time at home. Going to a British performance of HAMLET at the City Theatre. Excellent performance. Usually Hamlet is made an elegant, melancholy and beautiful prince. This time the chief actor, a forty-year-old overweight actor, had taken seriously the words of the queen that Hamlet was pale and fat and the information of the grave digger that he was thirty (forty?) and that Hamlet was born the same year as he. Actually, the kind of philosophical, theological monologues and discussions that Hamlet engages in fit better this more mature character than an elegant young prince. The actors articulated so well that the difficult Shakespearean language became easier. But there are so many philosophical lines and thoughts which one does not have the time to digest. They flow through the air. One should read the play slowly.

Saturday 16 December. New York. Eva Is Here

The US has now got its President – Bush – by a majority of one vote in the Supreme Court. Today Bush announced Colin Powell as his Secretary of State and the latter made a good speech of acceptance, apparently without reading a script. It was balanced and judicious. Saddam was to be contained or, if need be, confronted. Weapons of mass destruction were still in focus. The US needed its military forces but also its diplomats and both need their resources. Not a word about the UN. Eva arrived yesterday. Makes me happy. My landlady, Mrs Garcia, sent another TV set today. The superintendent was here and connected the right cables. God bless him and I gave him twenty bucks. Now the TV works.

Thursday 21 December

The past days have been dominated by my cold, by presentation of the third UNMOVIC report to the Security Council and the consolation that Eva has been here. The UNMOVIC Christmas – season’s – party was on Tuesday. I had to act as Santa Claus and distribute packages.

Today we took a cab to the Metropolitan (Museum) to see the special exhibition on the Scythians. Gold and other pieces from fourth century BC. Remarkably beautiful! Amazing that a nomadic people could produce such art. And evidence of much contact with the Persian and Greek civilizations. Mårten is arriving tomorrow, Friday. God willing and United Airlines flying we are off on Saturday to spend Christmas skiing at Vail, Colorado.

26 December 2000. Vail, Second Day of Christmas

So, here we are. Bright sunshine. White snow. Splendid. Four magpies hopping around in the pine outside the house and a small squirrel evading them. The house is spacious.

It serves us all well and is a new experience. The open fireplace works well. We enjoyed it last night. I have stayed indoors, fitted the necessary notes into my 2001 calendar, read the draft UNMOVIC manual which is in need of much more work.