U.N. Command May Be Revived to Enforce Sanctions : Policy: Bush seems cool to the idea, but activating the committee could ease criticism of the U.S.

Bush Administration officials, determined to frame the Persian Gulf crisis as a confrontation of Iraq against the rest of the world, met with key members of the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday to discuss reviving a long-dormant U.N. military command to enforce economic sanctions against Baghdad.

The plan, proposed by the Soviet Union, could launch the first fighting force under the U.N. flag since the Korean War and produce joint U.S.-Soviet military operations for the first time since the closing days of World War II.

Undersecretary of State Robert Kimmitt met at the State Department for almost an hour with ambassadors and other top diplomats from the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China--the other four permanent Security Council members--to discuss activating the U.N. Military Staff Committee. The committee would coordinate the activities of a growing international armada in the Persian Gulf.

State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said the discussions are at an early stage. She said representatives of the five nations will meet again soon in New York to continue the talks. No date was set.

Tutwiler said that Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze suggested using the U.N. body last week in a telephone conversation with Secretary of State James A. Baker III. She said Baker decided to bring in other Security Council members after discussing the plan several times with Shevardnadze.

Despite the State Department’s initiative, President Bush seemed cool to the idea during a late-afternoon news conference Tuesday. Talking to reporters about a half-hour after the diplomatic meeting, Bush said that he is “somewhat open-minded” about the plan, although the United States has ample legal authority to enforce the embargo on its own.

“I think that was raised to Jim Baker by Shevardnadze and I don’t have any objection, any problem, with talking to the Soviets about that,” Bush said. “I think it would be a very good thing to have an active Soviet presence to enforce these U.N. resolutions.”

But he added: “I don’t think it is essential that you have a U.N. flag . . . for countries to carry out their responsibilities.”

Bush’s comments suggest that the plan has both attractions and drawbacks.

The biggest plus is that it could prevent the gulf crisis from degenerating into a U.S.-Iraq confrontation and assure much wider international participation. Also, the plan could quiet the grumbling of some U.N. members, including the Soviet Union and France, that the United States is overstepping its authority by taking on enforcement of U.N. sanctions.

However, the plan would place U.S. forces--by far the largest contingent in the gulf--under an international command, something Washington has been traditionally reluctant to do.

“The Pentagon may not be quite ready to hand over 100,000 men they got to the area at great effort and expense to the command of some Swedish general,” one official at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations said. “There’s also the problem of once you turn on this mechanism, how do you stop it?”

When forces under the U.N. flag fought the Korean War, they were under the command of American officers. But no one thinks that Washington would be able to dominate the process this time.

After the Korean War, the U.N. Military Staff Committee was created. Its chairmanship rotates each month. A Soviet general is in charge this month, a British officer will take over next month and U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Carl R. Smith will be in the chair in October.

Theoretically, the committee has wide powers under the U.N. Charter to “command forces placed at the disposal of the (Security) Council.” The committee meets secretly every two weeks, but it has never been used to command troops because the Security Council has never been able to agree on what it should do.

During an unofficial meeting of the Security Council in New York on Monday, officials of France, Canada and the Soviet Union raised questions about the legality of Washington’s unilateral decision to “interdict” ships trading with Iraq. Although the three nations, all of which have their own ships in the gulf, did not press the issue, they made it clear that they would prefer to act under U.N. auspices.

Tutwiler insisted that U.S. interest in activating the U.N. committee has nothing to do with the criticism. Nevertheless, drawing the committee into the operation would seem to quiet complaints.

On Tuesday, France said that it is implementing all agreed-upon measures to stop trade with Iraq but that it would join U.S. and British warships in intercepting oil tankers and other merchant ships only if the Security Council authorizes the operation, Reuters news agency reported.

The Soviet Union said earlier that it would participate in a blockade only under U.N. auspices.

Baker said last week that some sort of coordinating mechanism would be required if the international warships in the gulf hope to work together on something as complex as a naval blockade. Baker’s plan to use the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for that purpose was rebuffed by other NATO foreign ministers. However, the U.N. committee would seem to fill that requirement equally well.

At his news conference, Bush said the most remarkable element of the gulf crisis so far has been the close cooperation of the United States and the Soviet Union.

“Let me put it this way: Suppose we set the clock back five years . . . and we had an event of this nature in the Middle East. The major unknown and the major area of concern would have been, how would the Soviets react? . . . What action are the Soviets apt to take?” he said.

“Now, today, we don’t have that concern because they have joined in the United Nations in condemning this aggression. And that’s a significant difference . . . .”

Times staff writer Don Shannon contributed to this report.