U.S. Text Meets Tough Going

UNITED NATIONS -- In a setback for Washington’s hopes for quick Security Council approval of a resolution on Iraq, Russia and France led tough and bitter negotiations Tuesday aimed at reining in an increasingly impatient United States.

In two meetings of the five veto-holding Security Council members Tuesday, representatives of Moscow and Paris and, for the first time, Beijing fought hard to shape a U.N. resolution that would keep the U.S. from using force against Iraq without council approval. They spent hours going line by line through a U.S.-drafted measure.

“The United Nations does not have forever...,” said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. “The United Nations is entering the final stages on this, and we would like to see an agreement reached.”

The United States floated its draft resolution Monday, calling for tougher inspections to seek out any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and saying it would consult with the Security Council about the serious “consequences” after any report that Iraq was not cooperating with the monitors.

However, the draft made clear that the U.S. would not have to wait for the Security Council to authorize military action. The proposal also recalled that Iraq is already in “material breach” of U.N. resolutions and that failure to cooperate with the world body would constitute a further breach -- which, U.S. officials argue, is sufficient justification to warrant use of force.

Russia and France, backed by China, fear this is a hidden trigger that would allow an attack on the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, while diplomats said Washington considered it a warning for Baghdad to take Security Council demands seriously.

U.S. and British officials hoped their concession would have been enough to satisfy the French, who don’t want Iraqi interference with the inspection process to automatically trigger a military strike. The French, and at least half the other 14 members of the council, want the U.S. to wait for U.N. approval before taking any military action. The U.S. proposal was crafted to meet them halfway, but diplomats said Tuesday that it wasn’t close enough.

In Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov told the Interfax news agency after he met chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix that “the American draft resolution ... does not, for the moment, meet the criteria which the Russian side had previously outlined and stands by now.”

And in Luxembourg, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, “Some progress is still needed, and so we have much work to do.”

On Tuesday morning, the hard work began. Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Sergei V. Lavrov summoned the other four veto-holding members of the Security Council -- France, Britain, China and the U.S. -- to the Russian mission. For three hours, the diplomats went over the text, arguing over words and concepts. Unable to agree, they met again for an hour in the evening and adjourned without significant breakthroughs, diplomats said.

“I think you have to allow the negotiating process a little bit of time,” said U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte after the evening meeting.

As they get down to final negotiations, the U.S. and its chief partners on the Security Council have vastly different takes on where the resolution stands.

French officials charged that the U.S. compromises did not take out the most contentious passages but merely moved them to other parts of the resolution. The Russians, who had taken a back seat to the French in challenging the American demands on Iraq, have suddenly dug in their heels.

“The Russians are in nit-picking mode,” rejecting each paragraph as unacceptable, said a council diplomat who requested anonymity. “They are just playing hard on every single point in a way that wasn’t helpful.”

For the first time in weeks of negotiations, the Chinese also have taken a firm stand since Monday in rejecting parts of the draft resolution.

“Take it or leave it” messages from hard-liners in Washington and charges of American “sneaky tricks” in manipulating the text have caused some diplomats to ask if the U.S. resolution was written to fail. On Tuesday, one diplomat from a veto-holding country for the first time questioned U.S. intentions -- and strategy.

“I’ve begun to wonder whether the United States really wants a resolution,” said the official, who requested anonymity.

U.S. officials remained confident.

“This is going to be a complicated process, because it is a long text,” said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. “It’s probably going to be a messy process. I would advise people not to overreact to the comments and debate that they might see ... because at the end of the day, other members of the council want a strong Security Council resolution that can effectively disarm Iraq, and that’s what we’re trying to do.”

At the same time, the Bush administration appears to be playing a tactical game in holding on to tough draft language until it is assured that the resolution will not be too watered down. Further U.S. compromises might be in the offing.

“We’re going to work with these guys. We know their concerns. You’ll see a certain amount of flexibility,” a senior State Department official said. He described the negative reaction to U.S. revisions of its resolution, which was presented in full text Monday, as “constructive” to Washington’s thinking.

The U.S. does not intend to budge on the issue of including language about Iraq being in “material breach,” which U.S. officials point out has been used at least 11 times in earlier resolutions and Security Council statements on Iraq.

*

Times staff writer Maura Reynolds in Washington contributed to this report.