U.S.-Russian Differences Over Iraq Run Deep

The breach that erupted Thursday between the United States and Russia over Iraq has been building for a long time, rooted in suspicions about duplicity and espionage, conflicting political goals and cynicism over rival economic interests in the Persian Gulf region.

The tensions over Iraq have grown gradually since the 1991 Persian Gulf War but have been largely papered over to preserve a strong diplomatic relationship between the two former rivals. But beneath the surface are rifts on several fronts:

* Weapons of mass destruction. The United States wants to pressure the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein until it reveals and destroys all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as ballistic missiles, as required in the cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War. It wants no debate about Iraq’s future until all four types of weapons have been eliminated.

Russia, in contrast, is prepared to address the issue in phases and “close the book” on certain types of weapons as soon as U.N. inspectors say they have been accounted for, as may soon be the case with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Moscow would like to see those steps taken in conjunction with the gradual easing of the toughest sanctions imposed on a single nation.

“It’s a fundamentally different way of looking at the problem--one side sees the glass as half empty, the other as half full,” said a U.S. specialist on Iraq. “But that also leads to fundamentally different ways of dealing with solutions.”

The different attitudes may have contributed to Iraq’s apparent ability since the Gulf War to acquire Russian technology that could be used to develop missiles and biological weapons.

U.N. weapons inspectors have documented that Russian companies with close ties to the government sold missile gyroscopes to Iraq in 1995, U.N. officials say.

More recently, U.N. weapons inspectors have been pressing Moscow about the status of sophisticated Russian-made fermentation equipment that could be used to make protein for both animal feed and biological weapons.

Inspectors recently found papers indicating that a deal with Iraq was signed in 1995, which would have been legal since the embargo allows purchase of material for food production.

But inspectors had not been notified of the sale by either Russia or Iraq, as the embargo also requires. And if the equipment was delivered, they were unable to find it in order to monitor its usage, triggering suspicions that Iraq may be hiding it because it is making illicit weapons.

A letter of inquiry sent to Moscow was among dozens of similar U.N. queries about imports to Iraq, both before and after the Gulf War, that are sent out each year to several governments. The largest number are believed to have gone to Germany.

Moscow had not responded until Thursday, when the Washington Post wrote about the inquiry, and officials in the U.N. weapons inspection office refused to comment on the report. Russia dismissed the claim as a “crude invention.”

But the report underscores deep U.S. concerns about what Russia and its newly privatized businesses are secretly selling.

“The Russians want to stay cozy with the Iraqis,” said a U.S. official. “Some of Russia’s new businesses also have a dearth of clients.”

In testimony Thursday before Congress, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the United States does not know the status of the fermentation equipment and called on the U.N. to investigate the case aggressively.

* Role of the United Nations. The United States views Iraq’s refusal to allow outside access to “presidential sites” as a grave violation that warrants punitive action.

Russia acknowledges that Baghdad is in violation of U.N. resolutions--but opposes the use of force.

The differences on this issue go even deeper.

The United States helped design the U.N. Special Commission, or UNSCOM, charged with conducting the inspections and has staunchly backed it. Many American arms specialists are U.N. inspectors, and U.S. intelligence has helped identify suspicious sites. An American, Charles Duelfer, has long served as deputy chairman.

Russian officials have privately charged that the inspection team is a tool of U.S. policy, despite the participation of many Russians.

Russian Ambassador Sergei V. Lavrov has become deeply critical of chief U.N. inspector Richard Butler. Some U.N., U.S. and British officials believe that Lavrov is now a mouthpiece for Iraq inside the Security Council and a pipeline to Baghdad about closed-door U.N. meetings.

U.N. and U.S. officials also grumble about what they see as Russian attempts to undercut inspectors in the field. Moscow has long been suspected of alerting Iraq to surprise inspections--a prime reason the U.N. is concerned about Iraq’s call for increased Russian participation in inspections.

While most UNSCOM employees are paid by their governments to hold down U.N. costs, Russia has stopped paying two workers’ salaries because they refused to take orders from Moscow, U.N. officials contend. The U.N. now pays their salaries.

Kremlin officials cast such reports as attempts to besmirch Russia while it endeavors to broker a compromise in the U.S.-Iraq crisis.

* Future of Saddam Hussein. Washington wants Hussein removed from power, or his government to adopt democratic practices. The Clinton administration has broadly interpreted the U.N. resolution on economic sanctions to mean that they will remain in place until one or both things occur.

In a speech last spring, Albright pledged, “To those who ask how long our determination will last, how long we will oppose Iraqi intransigence, how long we will insist that the international community’s standards be met, our answer is: as long as it takes.”

In contrast, Russia wants Hussein, an ally from the Soviet era, to stay in power. Russia, along with France and China, has interpreted the resolution to mean sanctions will be completely lifted as soon as all four of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have been dismantled.

The differing interpretations threaten to become a major diplomatic battle.

*

Foreshadowing the tension, Russian Defense Minister Igor D. Sergeyev said Thursday to his American counterpart, William S. Cohen: “Is America ready for all the possible consequences? Does the uncompromising and tough stand of the United States on the issue of Iraq help to strengthen stability and security in the world?”

Both sides have a vested economic interest in their positions.

Iraq owes Russia more than $7 billion from weapons purchases before the Gulf War. Since the war, Russian companies have initialed billions of dollars’ worth of oil deals that would apply the moment sanctions are lifted. Together, those factors could provide a major boost to Russia’s troubled economy.

A change in Iraqi leadership, however, could benefit U.S. businesses. A new government could ignore the deals with Russia and other countries.

During the U.S.-Iraq thaw between 1984 and 1990, dozens of U.S. companies established ties with Iraq that could fairly easily be resumed.

*

Times staff writer Carol J. Williams in Moscow contributed to this report.