Allies of Iraq Balk at Easing Sanctions

Although Iraq’s traditional allies on the Security Council have pushed for years to ease sanctions on the country, now that change is in the air, they are suddenly dragging their feet.

Russia, China and France said Tuesday that they need more time to consider new proposals introduced by Britain and backed by the United States to end the ban on exports to Iraq except for goods that could be used for military purposes. The U.S. and Britain hope to secure agreement on the new plan before the next phase of the old program begins early next month.

“We have quite a number of questions,” Russian Ambassador Sergei V. Lavrov said after the 15-member council discussed the proposal Tuesday evening. He said that Russia had submitted its own plan to simply extend the existing program for six months while trying to resolve its objections.

“Which does not mean we are against further consideration of the U.K. draft. On the contrary,” he said. “But we feel that this would involve more time than is left.”

The revamped sanctions plan is designed to relieve the hardship among ordinary Iraqis caused by sanctions-related shortages, while tightening controls on military materials and cracking down on smuggling. At the same time, it is expected that an influx of commercial goods would defuse Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s contention that the U.N. is causing his people’s suffering. The U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China--the five permanent members of the Security Council--all say they support these aims.

Britain crafted what it calls the “new concept” for humanitarian relief along with the U.S., and the draft plan makes significant concessions. It would allow passenger and cargo flights to Iraq if they were inspected for contraband, officially recognize the barter trade between Iraq and neighboring countries, and compensate Iraqi trading partners that might face losses if they bring their previously unsupervised trade--and smuggling--under U.N. oversight.

But China and France joined Russia on Tuesday in saying that the new proposals are too technical for such speedy adoption and don’t go far enough. Iraq rejected the plan outright, saying that it would cut off oil exports and stop cooperating with the U.N.’s “oil for food” program if the terms of the sanctions, first imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, are changed.

At the center of contention is the list of “controlled goods,” or items that would be restricted because they could be used for military purposes. Although the U.S.-compiled list hasn’t been circulated yet, it is based on an international list of dual-use goods and technologies, known as the Wassenaar Arrangement, and on the current U.N. list of banned exports to Iraq.

Dual-use goods include seemingly harmless items such as chlorine, a chemical used to purify swimming pools but also employed as an agent for mustard gas.

“The main difficulty is to determine what is really dangerous,” said a Western diplomat who asked not to be named. “It’s really a job for experts, not for diplomats. The list can’t be too narrow or too broad. If it covers telecom or energy, then it will be difficult to win support from countries who want to sell to Iraq.”

Last year, the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs calculated that a third of Iraq’s contracts went to its three supporters on the Security Council: China, France and Russia.

The second concern cited by the three countries is compensation for Iraq’s neighbors who might face losses or retribution for cooperating with the new plan.

Last week, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz threatened to cut off oil to Jordan, Turkey and Syria if they complied with the proposed rules. The countries now get Iraqi oil for a deep discount in exchange for bartered goods that usually cross the border without U.N. monitoring.

The draft plan does not specify where the money would come from to buffer the trading partners’ losses, but the U.N. could dip into a fund originally set up for parties that faced losses from the Persian Gulf War, some diplomats suggested.

“They could change the formula and allow other countries to tap into that account,” said Patrick Clawson, a research director for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Not only for Jordan or Turkey or Syria, but also the countries who are owed the most by Iraq. And that’s France and Russia.”