France, Russia Offer New Iraq Texts at U.N.

France and Russia each offered their own compromise proposals to the United Nations on Friday to counter a tough U.S. resolution on Iraq that they say opens the door to war on Baghdad without the approval of the Security Council.

The surprise move by two of the five veto-holding council members gave sharp, new focus to a dispute over Iraq that has dragged on for weeks. But some diplomats said it might lead to agreement by clearly defining the remaining differences.

The United States said that it was willing to discuss compromises. However, it declared that a new resolution must have tough consequences for Iraq and insisted that a vote be held next week.

The proposals by France and Russia focused on what the two countries called “hidden triggers” in the U.S. draft resolution -- ambiguous terms that could be used to initiate military action against Iraq.

They and other council members also objected to several strict requirements in the U.S. proposal that, if Iraq failed to meet them, could provide grounds for an attack.

“The real hidden trigger is not to have a resolution,” Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in response.

President Bush has said that if the U.N. fails to take action against Iraq, the U.S. will assemble a coalition of allies to act on their own.

“We’re caught in the cross-fire,” said Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, who holds an important swing vote. “We have to be careful we don’t create conditions to go to war that will backfire on the U.N. The challenge is to find the balance between responding to violations of U.N. resolutions while upholding international law.”

Both of the new proposals leave out the U.S. charge that Iraq already is in “material breach” of several Security Council resolutions, a term that can be used to justify military action that U.S. officials have insisted be in any new U.N. resolution.

The French draft retains the threat of “serious consequences” if Iraq fails to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, but it makes clear that the Security Council should decide how to respond to Iraqi noncompliance. The Russian proposal contained neither term and also retained restrictions on the inspection of Iraq’s so-called presidential sites.

Diplomats said that instead of setting back agreement on a resolution, the new drafts could help because they concretely define objections and alternatives to the U.S. text.

While the French are presenting their draft as a serious alternative, the Russians seemed to offer theirs as a set of ideas, and didn’t explain the text in detail to council members during the meeting, as the French and Americans did theirs.

A U.S. official said that despite Russia’s bluster in the last few days, the U.S. believes it will reach agreement with the Russians, noting that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had “a good discussion” with Russian Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov on Thursday at a meeting in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.

“They are working with us to get a resolution, and they are working with us off our draft,” the official said.

After a closed-door daylong debate Friday, the 15 members of the council agreed that they should seek consensus on a single resolution. But they remained divided on what it should say.

“Iraq has not complied with relevant U.N. resolutions -- on that we agree,” said Bulgarian Ambassador Stefan Tavrov after the council adjourned. “The whole question is what the consequences should be and how we should phrase it. I think we can find a solution where there is no ambiguity on this.”

The French think that their proposal, which requires the Security Council to convene before authorizing an attack on Iraq, has the backing of a majority of the Security Council.

To be adopted, a resolution needs nine votes and no vetoes from the five permanent members -- France, Britain, China, Russia and the U.S.

“It’s a good day for us,” said a French diplomat, who counted Russia, China, Mexico, Mauritius, Ireland, Guinea and Cameroon as supporters. Syria, the lone Arab voice on the council, is expected to vote against the measure or abstain.

The U.S. has agreed to consult with the council if Iraq obstructs weapons inspections or violates other terms of the resolution. But after six weeks of negotiations on the first resolution, the U.S. is wary of being embroiled in debate on a second, and insists it would not have to wait for its approval to strike.

The U.S. believes that Britain, Colombia, Norway, Bulgaria and perhaps Singapore share its view and that more states will swing its way in the coming days.

“We’re not counting votes,” said Deputy U.S. Ambassador James B. Cunningham. “You never know how people are going to vote until voting time comes.”

Rather than twisting arms, U.S. diplomats said they were listening Friday, taking notes on each ambassador’s suggestions to discuss over the weekend in Washington.

“We’ll figure out which suggestions strengthen the resolution, and which ones don’t,” said a U.S. official.

But privately, Bush administration officials said their bottom line was clear.

“We’re going to continue to work until next Friday -- and if we don’t get a resolution by then, the council of chieftains will meet” in Washington, said a senior U.S. official, referring to Bush’s top advisors. He said that including the term “material breach” was nonnegotiable and that the conditions for Iraq would remain stringent.

The U.S. resolution requires that Iraq accept the resolution within seven days, and make a full accounting of all materials for weapons of mass destruction within 30 days. If it doesn’t make an accounting, if it blocks inspectors or if it leaves anything off the list that is found later, Iraq would be in violation of the resolution.

“We’re hard core on these issues,” the official said, adding that the administration was willing to see a few countries abstain on the Security Council vote, “though it’s not the preferred option.”

Others at the U.N. fear that several abstentions would send a message to Iraq that the council was wavering on upholding its own demands. Abstentions by Russia, France, China and Malaysia on the 1999 resolution that created a new team of U.N. weapons inspectors gave Iraq little incentive to cooperate.

“We need to strengthen our hands without tying our feet,” said Chinese Ambassador Wang Yingfan, who added that it was too early to decide whether Beijing would abstain again.

“Certainly, we need to have very effective inspections because this is an issue of peace and war. But we do not wish to have a resolution that gives authorization of military action, and we do not wish to have any ambiguities that can be interpreted as giving the authorization already.”

On Monday, the Council will meet with chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and with Mohammed Baradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to determine what their inspectors need to do their job well.

“After that, I think we’ll be in a good position to look at how we get forward to come to conclusion on the resolution next week,” said Cunningham, the deputy U.S. ambassador.

*

Times staff writers Robin Wright in Washington and Sonni Efron in Cabo San Lucas contributed to this report.