U.N. Nears Agreement on New Iraq Sanctions

Faced with Iraq’s continued blockade of U.N. weapons inspectors, the Security Council appeared close to agreement Tuesday on a U.S.-backed proposal to clamp an immediate travel ban on top-level Iraqi officials and to warn of unspecified “further measures” if Baghdad does not back down.

The United States and Britain proposed the travel prohibition--seen here as a minimal measure--when it became apparent they could not win support on the council for firmer action or a threat to use military force against Iraq.

In the interests of gaining unanimous, or at least near-unanimous, Security Council backing for the resolution, which could come to a vote as soon as today, the U.S. agreed to the go-slow approach favored by France and Russia. Those two Persian Gulf War allies of the United States have been reluctant to strike hard at Iraq, favoring persuasion over intimidation.

The U.S. and Britain also decided not to include in the resolution a warning of “serious consequences” if Iraq continues its defiance and referred instead to a previous council statement that carried the same threat. The U.S. also accepted, at Egypt’s insistence, language affirming the territorial integrity and independence of Iraq.

U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson stressed that the council was unified in its intention to send what he called “an unmistakable signal to Iraq” to retreat.

“We believe the resolution that’s just been advanced has overwhelming support,” Richardson said. “It’s a resolution that has teeth, that has united the Security Council once again.”

He declined to speculate about what might happen if Iraq continues to defy the council. The U.S. and Britain have refused to rule out military action, even if they have to take it alone.

Last month, before the Iraqis threatened to evict the American weapons inspectors, France and Russia were among five members who abstained when the council voted 10 to 0 on a U.S. proposal to impose a similar, but weaker, travel ban that would have gone into effect in April.

*

Meanwhile, the dispute over the inspections remained at an impasse Tuesday. Iraqi authorities once again prohibited the Baghdad-based inspection teams from visiting weapons sites as long as Americans participate in the investigation. And the U.N. again refused to exclude the U.S. members.

Iraq has said it will not cooperate with the disarmament commission, which is charged with eliminating Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage nuclear, biological or chemical warfare, until all American participants are expelled from the country and the U.N. ends flights by an American U-2 reconnaissance plane on loan to the United Nations. The U.N. says those conditions are unacceptable.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz said Tuesday that neither side had moved in his two days of talks here. Aziz added that he would relay to Baghdad a message from Chinese Ambassador Qin Huasun, president of the Security Council this month, that the council is unified in urging Iraq to change its policy. But Aziz made clear that he did not expect a reversal.

“If you don’t have a change in the position of the Security Council, you cannot expect a change on the position of Iraq,” he said.

Aziz, who has been asking to address the council on Iraq’s grievances with the weapons commission, probably will get his chance on the day of the vote. Council rules permit nations that would be affected by a resolution to speak just before or after the balloting.

The proposed resolution would prohibit international travel by Iraqi political and military officials identified by the weapons commission as obstructing the inspections. It would be lifted one day after commission leader Richard Butler of Australia certified that the inspectors were no longer being impeded.

As a practical matter, travel restrictions could increase the discomfort of the Iraqi elite by prohibiting them from leaving the country for such purposes as medical treatment, vacations or overseas banking.

The proposal also condemns Iraq for its stance and expresses the council’s “firm intention to take further measures” unless it relents.

Under the agreement ending the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the commission must certify that Iraq has eliminated its weapons of mass destruction before the Security Council can lift the oil sales embargo and other economic sanctions imposed by the U.N. beginning with Iraq’s invasion of neighboring Kuwait in 1990.

*

In dealing with the current crisis, the U.S. and Britain have placed a high priority on achieving a united front against Iraq. And although the 15 council members are unified in their denunciation of Iraq’s ultimatum, there is division, particularly among the council’s powerful five permanent members, over the best way to force Baghdad back into compliance.

Russia and France favor a combination of threats against and incentives to Baghdad but oppose military action, while the U.S. and Britain have adopted a harder line. China, as a matter of policy, generally opposes sanctions and military action, but it rarely exercises the veto it has as one of the council’s five permanent members to thwart their use.

Analysts suggest that the Russian and French policies stem from those countries’ traditional desire to appear independent of the U.S., from the economic benefits they stand to gain from oil contracts scheduled to go into effect when the Iraqi embargo is lifted and from a growing concern about the effectiveness of sanctions.

John R. Bolton, a senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington who was assistant secretary of State for international organizations during the Bush administration, noted that Russia and France were among the last nations to join the coalition behind Operation Desert Storm.

“This pattern has existed ever since the invasion [of Kuwait] in 1990,” he said in a telephone interview.

In Paris, the French have vigorously resisted what they see as American efforts to demonize Hussein. However, when Aziz stopped in Paris on his way to New York on Monday, French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine called on Iraq “to shelve these measures and to abstain from any action likely to hinder the activities of the U.N. . . . inspectors.”

A Foreign Ministry official on Tuesday morning said France believes that the credibility and cohesion of the United Nations are now at issue.

“This is not a matter between France and the United States, or Iraq and the United States, but between the Security Council and Iraq,” the official said in a telephone interview. “The moment is delicate.”

Sentiments were similar in Moscow.

Describing developments in and around Iraq as “very alarming,” President Boris N. Yeltsin’s spokesman, Sergei V. Yastrzhembsky, said Russia is applying diplomatic pressure on Baghdad but opposes “using the United Nations Security Council as a cover for military strikes against Baghdad.”

“We do not see Iraq as a victim of unjustifiably harsh U.N. sanctions,” said Sergei Kirpichenko, deputy chief of the Foreign Ministry’s Middle East department. “On the other hand, Iraq has been under the pressure of strict sanctions imposed by the Security Council for six years, and we believe success in resolving the current issue lies in easing tensions around Iraq and applying sanctions of a gradual nature.”

In Virginia, President Clinton used a Veterans Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery to demand an end to Iraq’s interference with arms inspectors who, he said, “are doing what they should be doing. They must get back to work, and the international community must demand it.”

*

Times staff writers John-Thor Dahlburg in Paris, Carol J. Williams in Moscow and Norman Kempster in Washington contributed to this report.