Russia, France Say No New Resolution on Iraq Is Needed

Russia and France on Tuesday questioned the need for a new U.N. resolution authorizing military force against Iraq now that President Saddam Hussein’s regime has agreed to let weapons inspectors back into his country.

But as U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraqi arms experts moved ahead with plans for the monitors’ return, U.S. officials dismissed Iraq’s offer as a “diversion” and urged Security Council members not to take Baghdad at its word.

Wary that the Iraqi offer is reopening a rift in the Security Council after it briefly unified on Iraq policy this week, President Bush warned Tuesday that the world “must not be fooled” by Hussein’s latest move to let inspectors return.

Bush echoed the challenge he made at the United Nations on Thursday that helped spark the international community to confront Iraq’s decade of defiance.

“The United Nations must act,” he said. “It’s time to determine whether or not they’ll be a force for good and peace or an ineffective debating society.”

U.S. officials were confident that they could pass a tough new resolution “within days,” even though Russia’s foreign minister declared another U.N. measure unnecessary if inspectors can be quickly dispatched to Iraq.

“From our standpoint, we don’t need any special resolution for [inspections] to occur,” Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov said here, adding that the U.N. has already made “all the necessary resolutions, all the necessary decisions about that.”

Ivanov’s comments were echoed by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who agreed that the focus should be not on a new resolution but the quick return of inspectors.

Russia and France are among the five permanent members, who have veto power, on the Security Council.

The full 15-member council requested a meeting with chief weapons inspector Hans Blix today to hear what monitors would require before they could start searching for suspected biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Blix, the executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, met Tuesday night with his Iraqi counterparts to discuss “practical arrangements” of the monitors’ return to Iraq. Before the inspectors can set foot on the ground in the country, the United Nations and Iraq must iron out logistical issues involving offices, flights, escorts and other planning.

Blix said in a statement that the two sides will meet in Vienna during the week of Sept. 29. A precise date had not been set so that Blix would have flexibility to work with the Security Council.

At the United Nations, however, U.S. officials warned that Hussein’s offer fell short because it did not address a host of concerns raised by past U.N. resolutions, including the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, but merely promised to allow new inspections.

“The issue is not inspectors,” Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said here Tuesday. “The issue is disarmament.”

Washington is pushing for one or two new U.N. resolutions that would contain at least three elements: to record Iraqi breaches of 16 past U.N. resolutions, specify what Iraq must do to fulfill its U.N. obligations and spell out the consequences if Hussein’s regime fails to cooperate.

Powell urged Security Council members to support a new resolution to ensure that Iraq does not return to “business as usual.”

“We cannot just take a one-and-a-quarter-page letter signed by the [Iraqi] foreign minister as the end of this matter,” Powell said at a U.N. briefing. “We have seen this game before.”

The United States aims to expand the inspectors’ mandate to include complete access to “presidential sites,” which the U.N. previously accepted as off-limits, without Iraqi escorts and without warning, and to clear the way for military intervention at the first sign of obstruction.

Before the Iraqis agreed Monday night to allow inspectors to return, the debate centered on whether the U.N. terms should be contained in one resolution or two. A French proposal suggested holding up the debate on a second measure until after Iraq had breached the first--an arrangement the U.S. feared would cause needless delays.

If the other Security Council members would not accept a single “front-loaded” resolution that included consequences for Iraq, the U.S. hoped to link the two resolutions so that the second would kick in without debate after a breach of the first, a State Department official said.

But Iraq’s swift response--helped along by U.S. threats of war and pressure from Arab allies and Russia--has changed that debate.

Arab leaders, who are concerned about the instability an attack on Iraq would bring to the region, echoed Ivanov’s statements and resisted U.S. attempts to introduce other unresolved issues--from the return of Kuwaiti war prisoners to human rights--into the debate.

“After the letter of the Iraqi government accepting the unconditional return of the inspectors, I see no need for another Security Council resolution,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher. “I think we should pursue this solution without straying into other alleys or raising other matters.”

Other U.S. allies, particularly Germany, have been urging the U.S. to stop its military “adventure” against Hussein. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has made Iraq an issue in his fight for reelection Sunday, as polls show that 80% of the German population opposes following the U.S. into a war with Iraq.

“The important thing now is that we do not let slip this chance for a political, nonconfrontational and cooperative new order in the Middle East,” Schroeder said.

For many at the United Nations, the best opportunity to avoid armed conflict is to let the weapons inspectors do their job.

The U.N. statement released after Tuesday’s meeting between Blix, the chief weapons inspector, and two Iraqi officials said Hussein’s representatives had agreed to consider national legislation prohibiting any activities leading to the creation of weapons of mass destruction, as required by U.N. resolutions. The Iraqis also promised to file more than half a dozen overdue reports on imported dual-use items and changes in former weapons sites.

There was no word on when the inspectors would return to Iraq, but Blix said in an interview last week that he could have an advance team on the ground within a week. It would take at least a month to procure proper equipment and 60 days to reestablish a baseline for inspections, he said.

When the teams are fully operational, they have 120 days to report to the council about whether Iraq is cooperating and about their progress on any remaining banned weapons issues.

*

Times staff writers Robin Wright and Janet Hook in Washington, James Gerstenzang in Nashville, Tenn., and Carol J. Williams in Berlin contributed to this report.