Those busy criticising one or all of these people rarely bother to condemn Saddam Hussein, the man who could, if he wanted to, have complied eight years ago with the terms of the Desert Storm ceasefire, thereby obviating the necessity for the sanctions that cause suffering to ordinary Iraqis. He can, if he wants to, ensure that his population receives necessary nutrition and proper medical supplies, all of which are funded in the oil-for-food deals arranged by the UN, but prefers to leave Iraqis in misery while keeping himself and his cronies in grand style. He does this because he seeks to possess biological, chemical and nuclear weapons which would make him too dangerous to oppose and which would allow him to hold his people, neighbours and the world to ransom.

Critics of Desert Fox rarely concede that over the last long eight years Iraq has continued to block and impede all UNSCOM efforts to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. They rarely acknowledge that Iraq has already confessed to have in its arsenals enough deadly microbes to kill the global population many times over.

The job of the Security Council and UNSCOM have been to stop Saddam achieving his frightening objectives. Yet those who have done their job receive the criticism from the same people who urged us to leave him in place in Kuwait eight years ago.

Richard Butler, the victim of crude attempts to unseat him by Saddam’s apologists or professional rivals and petty sniping from disgruntled academics, deserves high praise for the way he has shouldered the most difficult of tasks over the last two years. People seem to forget that his predecessor, Rolf Ekeus, was also opposed by the Iraqis and called a liar.

But as was the case with Ekeus, he is a dedicated disarmament expert simply attempting, despite sabotage and delaying tactics, to do his job. He has been the target of cynical manoeuvres by Russia and France, both of whom would prefer to see sanctions ended quickly so they can start making money from contracts they have already signed with Iraq and in the Russian case have debts repaid.

Rather than joining in the disinformation campaign, we should send the strongest message of support for the work he has done, which reflects well on Australia.

As for reports that the US somehow used UNSCOM to spy on Iraq, this is strongly denied by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan even though they initially emanated from his "confidants". They were strongly repudiated by the US as simply recycling Saddam’s propaganda, as well as angrily rejected by Butler. There seems little doubt, however, that given Annan’s earlier criticism of Butler as "undiplomatic" and the possibility of restructuring inspections in the future, there is concerted pressure on Butler to step down by his opponents as well as by Iraq’s promoters.

It is hardly news that intelligence assistance from the US, UK, Israel and at least a dozen other significant countries was utilised by UNSCOM to assist in its overall UN mandated task of disarming Saddam. In the light of Saddam’s continued refusal to co-operate, UNSCOM’s future must be problematic but, to his credit, Butler refuses to walk. He has the complete confidence of the US and will receive full historical credit for his sterling contribution to international disarmament unlike the many apologists and appeasers that surround him in UN circles.

Further, as Marine General Anthony Zinni pointed out last week, the strikes have triggered a level of demoralisation and disorganisation in the Iraqi regime not seen for some time. In the rebellious south, officers have been executed for refusing to obey Saddam’s crackdown orders, and his impetuous behaviour in challenging the "no fly zones" and refusing any cooperation with UN arms inspectors suggests a new degree of desperation.

The air strikes against Iraq, US sources have revealed, have been more effective in their impact on Saddam’s military, security and intelligence apparatus than was originally thought, his tools of control which maintain his hold on power, and his ability to develop his dangerous weapons.

For those who said that Australia’s support for Richard Butler and for the air strikes would damage our interests, it needs to be remembered that Iraq is only one country in the region and that the Gulf states whose existence depends upon Saddam being weakened and removed will certainly not bear Australia any bad feeling. Nor will Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt or Jordan. Indeed Iraq itself has just bought $100 million worth of Australian wheat.

Saddam’s wild attack on other Arab rulers, will only increase their impatience with his regime. Egypt’s official media has now called for Saddam’s overthrow, while Mubarak responded that the ruling regime in Iraq is the cause of all the problems. Critics in Australia of the US led action and their claims that Australia’s interests would be threatened and that the Arab world is outraged and so on, ought to think again.

So should those confused and rabid critics of the principled and courageous Richard Butler. He has acted valiantly in the best traditions of Australia’s diplomatic commitment to international security and disarmament. Our stocks in the Middle East, as a result of his efforts, will be shown if anything to have improved for years to come in that part of the world.