Nearing Unity on Inspections

The United States on Thursday appeared to head off any move by the U.N. Security Council to send weapons inspectors back to Iraq under current rules that have repeatedly failed in the past.

Displaying uncharacteristic unity on the Iraq issue, representatives from several countries-- including Britain, France and the U.S.--said after a 2 1/2-hour meeting that a new Security Council resolution was needed to clarify “loose ends” before the inspectors’ return.

Diplomats said the issues include gaining unfettered access to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s presidential compounds -- eight large plots of land, many of them containing dozens of buildings, that had been virtually impossible to inspect under existing rules.

“We’ve said it’s prudent to have new practical arrangements before we go, and we still think this,” said chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix.

The development seemed to end the push last month by several U.N. member states who wanted inspectors back immediately, after Iraq consented to their return under existing rules--a prospect strongly opposed by the Bush administration.

Despite the emerging consensus on the need for new, clear rules for inspections, major differences still separated Security Council members about the form they should take, and how stringent and comprehensive the resolution containing them should be. A major sticking point that remains is whether a new resolution would allow for an immediate use of force if Iraq balks at inspections, a provision strongly favored by the Bush administration.

In Moscow, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov strongly opposed a toughly worded U.S.-backed resolution, saying it was not the time for statements advocating the use of military force. In Paris, France stuck doggedly to its insistence that any Security Council action against Iraq be broken into two parts--one defining the inspections regime, a second stating the consequences if Baghdad fails to comply.

Events at the United Nations and in member capitals marked the latest steps in an Anglo-American effort to rid Iraq of any nuclear, biological and chemical weapons by conducting rigorous inspections backed by the potential use of force if Hussein fails to cooperate. They unfolded as the Bush administration began quietly exploring a less hard-line strategy for passing a resolution that would win broad support for strong action within the Security Council.

In Congress, meanwhile, debate formally began Thursday on a domestic resolution that would give President Bush broad authority to launch military action against Iraq if he determines that further diplomatic efforts have proved insufficient. In the Republican-controlled House, the International Relations Committee approved the measure, 31 to 11. That clears the way for what is expected to be a strong vote of support by the full House next week.

In the Senate, where many senior Democrats want to impose more restrictions on Bush’s war-making powers, the debate promises to be more contentious. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has said he wants the Senate to consider at least two alternatives that would give a larger role to the U.N. and focus the potential use of force more narrowly on ensuring the disarmament of Iraq.

As debate opened Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he hoped it would mark “the beginning of the end of Saddam Hussein and all that he stands for.”

At the U.N., after the Security Council listened Thursday to Blix’s report on his meetings earlier this week in Vienna with Iraqi negotiators, members seemed to agree not just that new rules were needed but also that inspectors should return to Iraq as soon as possible once more stringent rules are established.

In keeping with Baghdad’s recent conciliatory posture, Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Mohammed Douri said resolving the problem of access to the presidential compounds “would not be an issue of difficulty” between Iraq and the weapons inspectors.

Blix reached agreement in his talks with the Iraqis that inspectors would return to Baghdad on Oct. 19. However, he indicated Thursday that he would not go until the Security Council had voted on a new resolution.

“We’re ready to go at the earliest practical opportunity,” Blix said. “If there is a delay, it wouldn’t be a long one. I think the council would want us to go early.”

Blix was scheduled to meet with senior Bush administration officials in Washington today. While the chief inspector described the visit as a routine consultation, the talks are expected to include a detailed briefing on his meetings with Iraqi negotiators and his assessment of what he needs to make the inspections work.

In Washington, Bush stepped up pressure on the United Nations to quickly pass a resolution authorizing a tough weapons inspection regime in Iraq.

“When it comes to defending our freedom, the United States of America will stand united and stand strong,” Bush told a meeting of Latino leaders in Washington. “The choice is up [to] the United Nations to show its resolve.”

But there were also softer elements to his rhetoric Thursday.

“The military option is my last choice, not my first. It’s my last choice,” Bush said. “But Saddam has got to understand, the United Nations must know, that the will of this country is strong.”

In the last few days, the White House has all but dropped references to the need for “regime change” in Iraq, stressing instead that ensuring the Persian Gulf nation has no weapons of mass destruction is the goal, and use of force the last resort to achieve it.

Coupled with this rhetoric, the Bush administration is quietly exploring a backup strategy for winning a U.N. resolution that would bridge the wide gap between the United States and its French and Russian partners on the Security Council, according to U.S. officials.

The compromise would more closely match the French approach that the Security Council should pass a resolution now governing a tough new regime of weapons inspections but put off passage of a second measure that would authorize the use of force.

Rather than wait until there is a so-called material breach to discuss the terms, Washington is probing the possibility of locking in agreement now on the specific language of a resolution that spells out the consequences--and then in effect shelving it unless there is a showdown over inspections.

The critical difference is timing. France, many in the Arab world and other U.N. members want to defer the issue of force, a position that U.S. officials reject on two counts:

* Washington believes that weapons inspectors will have no leverage over Iraq unless the threat of force looms.

* A measure now that does not approve the use of force could lead to another, potentially time-consuming diplomatic clash some months down the road.

“It’s critically important not to lose the current momentum,” said a well-placed administration official, who requested anonymity.

Baghdad’s goal, U.S. officials say, is to try to stall until late March, when extremely hot weather in the region begins to limit military options. The working assumption in Washington is that if Iraq can stall until March, it may have bought eight more months.

The inter-agency group handling Iraq strategy has not yet blessed the compromise option, U.S. officials say. But American and British envoys have been working on it as a fallback position.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer on Thursday declined to repeat previous remarks that the French proposal for two resolutions was unacceptable. And he was careful to describe regime change as a policy adopted by Congress. Fleischer also declined to confirm that the administration has shifted its stance, replying that negotiations over a possible U.N. resolution are secret.

Fleischer suggested that the president’s position may have shifted--in private.

“How do you know the president has not moved?” he asked. “I submit to you that much of these negotiations are, as you would expect, diplomatic conversations that take place in private.”

In Paris, a French Foreign Ministry spokesman reiterated the words of President Jacques Chirac, who on Wednesday night spoke forcefully in favor of his nation’s two-step approach. The French leader was joined at the presidential palace in Paris by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose criticism of potential military action against Iraq has annoyed the Bush administration.

“We are indeed hostile to any resolution that grants an automatic character to a military intervention,” Chirac said Wednesday.

The French believe that U.N. inspections have a realistic chance of working.

“Above all, we want Iraq to be stripped of any arms of mass destruction and that this be controlled without any ambiguity,” Chirac said.

In Moscow, Saltanov, the deputy foreign minister, declared that any move toward military action against Baghdad must wait until inspectors make their initial report.

“The document presented to us by the Britons and the Americans has only strengthened our confidence in the correctness of our stance favoring the earliest relaunch of inspections and monitoring activities in Iraq, and a general political settlement without the use of force,” Saltanov said.

He added that unilateral military action by the United States would undermine “international legal fundamentals” which “enable civilized settlement of modern problems.”

*

Marshall reported from the United Nations and Wright from Washington. Times staff writers Janet Hook and Maura Reynolds in Washington, John Daniszewski in Moscow, Maggie Farley at the United Nations and Sebastian Rotella in Paris contributed to this report.