Iraq Deadline of Jan. 15 Set by U.N.’s Big Five

The five permanent members of the U. N. Security Council agreed Tuesday on Jan. 15 as the deadline in a resolution that would demand that Saddam Hussein pull his troops out of Kuwait or face military action.

Chinese sources here said that China has agreed to the wording but will abstain from the vote and will not veto the resolution.

Meanwhile, a strong U.S. drive toward a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq ran into a potential stumbling block as some council members demanded that the 15-member body vote first on a resolution protecting the safety of Palestinians in territories occupied by Israel.

U.S. diplomats believed they had enough votes in the council to force postponement today of formal consideration of this resolution--which calls for the appointment of an ombudsman in the occupied territories--but were admittedly nervous and lobbied strongly for the measure to be put off.

“It’s 65-35 against a vote,” said a U.S. adviser, who stressed that the last thing the Bush Administration wants is any linkage between the Palestinian question and the Persian Gulf on the day Secretary of State James A. Baker III arrives in New York. Baker will chair the council’s historic meeting Thursday that will set a Jan. 15 deadline for Iraq’s troops to withdraw from neighboring Kuwait.

Both the Soviet Union and Britain on Tuesday said that Jan. 15 is the date agreed upon in the resolution.

“Yes, it’s going to be the 15th,” said the Soviet U.N. Ambassador Yuli M. Vorontsov, when asked if a consensus had emerged among all five permanent members of the Security Council.

The draft resolution to be voted on Thursday allows Iraq “one final opportunity” to withdraw its troops from Kuwait by mid-January or face the prospect of military force.

The United States was confident Tuesday that it has perhaps 11 votes in the Security Council--two more than needed--to pass the gulf resolution. U.S. diplomats see the possibility of gaining perhaps two more votes. But Cuba said it will vote against the resolution.

Meanwhile, a number of citizens of occupied Kuwait appeared before the Security Council on Tuesday to tell of their country’s suffering under the Iraqi occupation. The Kuwaitis, some of them weeping, detailed atrocities by Saddam Hussein’s troops. A physician described burying 14 new babies who were taken from their incubators by the soldiers. A nurse told of critically ill patients being yanked off life support systems and left to die. Another nurse told of helping treat “many nurses” who were raped by the Iraqis.

Before that testimony, in a rare public display of pique in the council, three nations--Cuba, Yemen and Malaysia--lobbied hard for the Palestinian territories resolution and criticized U.S. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering in his role as president of the Security Council.

“Today is exactly one week since four members of the Security Council asked you to convene a meeting of this body to consider a draft resolution on the situation in the occupied territories,” Cuban Ambassador Ricardo Alarcon told Pickering.

“Thus far, these delegations that sent the request, which is based on the rules of procedure of the council, have not received any consideration of that draft resolution.

“After three weeks of consultations, we have had enough. We cannot understand why the council allows postponement . . . while the council considers other issues,” said Yemen Ambassador Mohammed Abdulaziz Sallam.

“The item that has been mentioned necessitates urgent consideration,” added Malaysia’s U.N. representative.

After the meeting, Nasser Kidwa, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s observer at the United Nations, went even further, accusing Pickering of “filibustering.”

Pickering scheduled consultations on the Palestinian resolution for today.

The text of the resolution condemns the refusal of the Israeli government to comply with other Security Council resolutions and calls for the convening of the 164 nations that signed the Fourth Geneva Convention covering the treatment of civilians in occupied territories.

U.S. diplomats acknowledged that support exists in the council beyond the resolution’s original sponsors--Colombia, Malaysia and Yemen--but expressed guarded optimism that a vote could be put off. Finland was preparing further modifications to the draft.

Over the years, postponement has been refined to an art form at the United Nations. As an example, using just one of many tactics, a delegation can say it has not yet received final instructions from its government back home.

Nonetheless, there was nervousness Tuesday night in the U.S. Mission, directly across First Avenue from the United Nations building.

Western diplomats believe that if the issue of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians--specifically, the killing of 20 Palestinian demonstrators in Jerusalem on Oct. 8--is introduced the day before Secretary Baker takes his seat as the council president, it could prove embarrassing to the U.S. government, which wants the council to concentrate on the use-of-force resolution directed at Saddam Hussein.

But they emphasized that in no way does it threaten the integrity of the Persian Gulf resolution. Until Tuesday, U.S. diplomats believed that they had succeeded in putting off any Palestinian vote, and the suddenness with which sentiment surfaced in the council came as a surprise.

Israel strongly objects to the terms of the resolution, which would have a commissioner or ombudsman appointed to monitor the situation with the help of U.N. personnel already stationed in the area.