This is just a tidbit of war propaganda planted by the U.K., broadcast in this instance by the pro-war London Times.
How could Blix have "hidden" the existence of the drone when he fully disclosed it in his written report to Security Council on Friday? An account of Blix's report states:
“Recent inspections have also revealed the existence of a drone with a wingspan of 7.45m that has not been declared by Iraq,” the report [by Blix] said. “Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone had been test-flown. Further investigation is required to establish the actual specifications and capabilities of these RPV drones . . . (they) are restricted by the same UN rules as missiles, which limit their range to 150km (92.6 miles)."
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...9-3-2003_pg4_1
So Iraq can have the drones, it's just a question of how far they can fly. Iraq violated 1441 when it failed to disclose their existence, but this is just one of over a dozen instances of Iraq's initial report containing material non-disclosures. 1441 provides that UNMOVIC must report such breaches to the Security Council, which will then decide what consequences, if any, will follow. Blix did exactly what he's supposed to do. Nothing in 1441 requires him to act as mouthpiece for the U.S. and U.K. by trumpeting "smoking guns" before the facts are in.
Although the US knows that Blix couldn't read a 173-page report at his briefing, they're pulling something out of it that he didn't highlight, and then spinning it as "nondisclosure." This inspired the same Times correspondent, while conceding in his news report that Blix disclosed the drone, to write a companion "analysis" that leads as follows: "The secret Iraqi drone that United Nations weapons inspectors apparently hid from the UN Security Council ...." Note: he "apparently hid" it by disclosing it in writing. After trimming away the rhetoric, the only real fact of this story is that Blix didn't read a 173-page report on TV.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...9-3-2003_pg4_1
Further, the Times also misleading suggests that the drone is flatly prohibited: "The discovery of the drone, which has a wingspan of 7.45 metres, will make it much easier for waverers on the Security Council to accept US and British arguments that Iraq has failed to meet UN demands that it disarm." It appears that the Times is more guilty of misleading the public through non-disclosure than is Blix. I doubt you'll see the same source accuse Bush of material non-disclosure in his statements about Iraq being capable of building more missiles, while failing to admit that Iraq is allowed to have missiles under UN guidelines.
To his credit, even Powell isn't making much of Blix's alleged nondisclosure. According to your source, "General Powell said that Dr Blix could have made much more of such Iraqi defiance, adding: 'But I don’t write his script.'" It's therefore not a question of disclosure, but emphasis. Yet even this statement was spun by the Times as an example of "quiet fury among British and US diplomats" and "simmering American anger" at Blix.
The same story will no doubt be exaggerated in the right-wing radio media as an example of Blix's "pro-Saddam" mentality.