Security Council Comes to Terms on Iraq Warning

The Security Council unanimously warned Iraq on Monday of the “severest consequences” if Baghdad violates the agreement on unrestricted U.N. weapons inspections negotiated last week with Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Despite the tough language of the resolution, the long, behind-the-scenes debate that preceded Monday’s meeting again exposed fundamental divisions between the United States and most other council members over how to deal with Iraq.

Many council members agreed to vote for the measure only after its two sponsors, Britain and Japan, assured them that the warning of “severest consequences” did not imply approval, in advance, of a U.S. airstrike on Iraq at the first sign of noncompliance.

Although much of the debate had an arcane quality--for example, over whether the wording should be “most severe” or “severest”--it was another reminder to the Clinton administration that few other countries are eager to embrace the U.S. threat of force to get Iraq to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors who are charged with eliminating Baghdad’s ability to wage chemical, biological and nuclear war.

The United States is nearly alone, for example, in asserting that existing U.N. resolutions give it the authority to launch an attack on Iraq without a Security Council vote. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Bill Richardson repeated that contention Monday as he declared that the United States was “very pleased” with the resolution.

More typical of the majority on the 15-member council was the comment by Fernando Berrocal Soto, Costa Rica’s delegate, that most nations oppose anything that could be considered a “blank check” for a U.S. attack on Iraq. Brazilian Ambassador Celso L. N. Amorim also asserted that only the council as a whole could authorize the use of force against Iraq.

As is often the case here, council members patched over their differences in the interest of maintaining a facade of unanimity. The insertion of an ambiguous phrase saying the council will continue to monitor the issue “to ensure implementation of this resolution and to secure peace and security in the area” let all sides claim a measure of victory.

British Ambassador John Weston, who with Richardson is the most hawkish member on Iraq, said that phrase meant the council will be scrutinizing Iraqi actions to ensure compliance. In contrast, a spokesman for the Chinese, who are generally sympathetic to Iraq, suggested it meant the council will have to vote to confirm any alleged Iraqi violation of the Annan agreement.

The resolution gives a formal endorsement to the accord signed by Annan and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz in Baghdad allowing weapons inspections at eight “presidential sites” in Iraq that the government in Baghdad had declared off limits. The pact led the U.S. and Britain to call off a possible airstrike on Iraq.

In an address to the council Monday, Annan defended the agreement and warned Iraq that it will be responsible for the pact’s success or failure. “The government of Iraq must now fulfill, without obstruction or delay, the continuing obligations that it reaffirmed last week at the very highest level,” he said. “With today’s Security Council resolution . . . the government of Iraq fully understands that if this effort to ensure compliance through negotiation is obstructed, by evasion or deception, as were previous efforts, diplomacy may not have a second chance. No promise of peace and no policy of patience can be without limits.”

The blunt warning seemed in part a response to complaints by some Republicans in the U.S. Congress that Annan caved in to Iraq in the Baghdad talks.

President Clinton hailed the council’s action, saying it is now up to Iraq “to turn the commitment it has made into full compliance.”

On Capitol Hill, tough talk continued. Lawmakers at a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing titled “Can Saddam Be Overthrown?” discussed methods for toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

A prominent Iraqi dissident recommended that the U.S. openly back the opposition Iraqi National Congress and let it marshal dissent. “The Iraqi people ask you to give us the tools and let us finish the job,” said Ahmad Chalabi, president of the opposition group’s executive council. “Saddam is the Iraqi people’s problem, and we are prepared to bear any burden to remove him from power.”

He asked for U.S. air cover in setting up opposition zones and for access to Iraqi government money frozen at the time of the Persian Gulf War. He criticized the U.S. government for failing to support previous uprisings against Hussein.

Chalabi’s approach was endorsed by former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, who urged the United States to set aside covert methods and endorse an open campaign to support democracy in Iraq. “We have not had a U.S. strategy and we need one,” said Woolsey, who headed the CIA from 1993 to 1995.

Woolsey recommended that U.S. officials recognize an exile government and spread opposition messages through a “Radio Free Iraq” broadcast. Such an approach would not violate bans on political assassination, he said.

In a meeting with reporters, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he would back legislation urging that Hussein be put on trial as a war criminal. Such a step ought to be combined with an array of other efforts, Lott said.

In testimony, experts agreed that Hussein could be toppled if the United States supported the rebels. Chalabi said Iraqis are so fed up with Hussein that they could force him from office in months. But Woolsey said, “Such a policy is not easy and it may take years.”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), chairman of the subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, called Hussein “the root cause of the problem” and urged his ouster.

But Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) expressed skepticism. “I think it’s important that we exercise much caution as we proceed,” he said.

As for the White House, it rejected Iraq’s assertion that U.N. weapons inspections cannot go on indefinitely. “I would disregard what the government of Iraq has to say when they’re in spin mode,” presidential spokesman Mike McCurry said Monday.

Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Nizar Hamdoun, in a Cable News Network interview, acknowledged that Baghdad’s agreement with the U.N. contains no time limit for inspections of the eight presidential sites that the Iraqis had declared off limits. “But I think that all the understanding was it should be within a reasonable time,” Hamdoun said. “I mean, this process cannot continue forever.”

In a related matter, Annan’s office on Monday continued to work on new procedures for conducting weapons inspections in the eight presidential compounds.

The Baghdad agreement calls for the weapons inspectors to be accompanied by diplomats when they enter those sites, and Annan’s office now is working on those details.

Officials in the U.N. leadership are divided over how tough the procedures should be on Iraq, sources said.

Turner reported from the United Nations and Lacey from Washington.