Security Council Opponents May Feel Powerless to Wield Iraq Veto

Russia, China and France have made clear their opposition to an invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces. But so far, the three crucial members of the U.N. Security Council have not tried to agree on a strategy for stopping the Americans.

Diplomats and analysts in those countries say the three major powers may be helpless to stop President Bush if he’s determined to go ahead. At most, the main opponents of a U.S. invasion can hope to embarrass the United States by pointedly blocking any U.N. sanction for military action.

As permanent members of the Security Council, the three nations can veto any resolution that comes before the body--as can the U.S. and its chief ally, Britain.

But they may feel powerless to wield that weapon if the U.S. seeks the world body’s backing for military action, for fear the Bush administration will simply ignore the council’s will--leaving them to appear ineffectual and out of the good graces of the world’s leading military and economic power.

On Friday, Bush spoke by telephone with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and met at the White House with Putin’s foreign and defense ministers, seeking support for a tough new U.N. resolution approving the use of force if Iraq does not quickly accede to thorough weapons inspections.

Putin in his telephone call again insisted that U.N. inspection teams first be allowed to do their work and determine whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein does in fact have banned weapons of mass destruction, according to a Kremlin statement.

Analysts emphasized that it is still too early to predict how the diplomacy surrounding any attack will play out. There remains a strong possibility that the three main opponents to U.S. action will be brought around rather than risk a confrontation with the U.S. over a regime viewed as probably doomed anyway.

In the meantime, officials in the three nations play for time.

“What is going on now is a complicated game, rich in mutual bluff,” said Russian defense analyst Ivan Safranchuk, director of the Moscow Office of the Center for Defense Information. “The Americans are bluffing, saying that they will submit to the U.N. a new resolution on Iraq. Russia, France ... and China are bluffing that they are going to veto this resolution.”

In actuality, Safranchuk says, “the last thing the Americans want is their resolution vetoed. They’d rather deliver a military strike without any resolution than with a vetoed resolution.”

On the other hand, he noted, Russia, France and China would like to avoid vetoing a U.S. resolution, “which would be a re-creation of a situation reminiscent of the Cold War era” when the world was divided into sharply opposed camps.

So far, Russia has been the most vocal permanent member of the Security Council to oppose U.S. military action against Iraq.

France has been generally cool to the idea--but not as adamantly as in past disputes with Washington. In fact, France has left open the possibility that it might eventually agree to U.S.-led military action.

China, meanwhile, has stated opposition for the record, but has spoken so softly that no one is paying much attention.

Summing up the Russian position, Yuli M. Vorontsov, a former Russian ambassador to the United Nations, said, “Diplomatic means are preferable for resolving the situation, because in order to find out whether Iraq possesses mass destruction weapons it is necessary first to inspect Iraq’s territory.”

However, he said, a ground operation “would be a real nightmare for U.S. troops.... No one can predict what might happen.”

Vorontsov believes that Russia would veto any U.N. resolution that seeks to validate a U.S. invasion of Iraq, though the Kremlin knows realistically that Bush may well go ahead with war plans anyway.

“If the White House decides to go ahead, there is no mechanism for Russia to stop the Americans,” he said. But he warned that “relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world will immediately deteriorate, perhaps past redemption.”

“Russia’s only leverage is to veto, but even this is very weak,” agreed Viktor A. Kremenyuk, deputy director of the Moscow think tank USA-Canada Institute and a security expert.

For now, Kremenyuk said, the Kremlin is just not convinced that Hussein has to go and believes the Iraqi leader’s removal would hurt Russian interests in the long run.

Hussein has been a good customer of Russian technology and weapons and has given Russian companies access to Iraqi oil, he noted.

“In a word, Saddam is Russia’s client--and it would be a pity to lose him,” Kremenyuk said. “Replacing him with somebody else, especially someone appointed by the U.S., would mean Russia’s ouster from Iraq sooner or later.”

Perhaps more important, Russia would like to avoid an open breach on the Security Council, which could cause the United States to act alone, damaging the credibility of international diplomacy.

“In that case, the U.N. is doomed,” he said. “The only thing left would be for the U.N. to close up shop--something very few countries in the world are ready for.”

Like Russia, France is seeking to avoid antagonizing Washington and pushing it into a corner. Unlike with other international debates, in which France has led European opposition to the United States, recent French policy on Iraq has been balanced and nuanced and does not rule out the use of military force.

France has worked hard to channel the Iraq issue through the United Nations, emphasizing the need to adhere to international law. Yet French diplomats seem willing to go along with a tough U.N. resolution insisting on Iraqi disarmament and other conditions.

A resolution that firmly reiterates the obligations of Iraq in matters of disarmament ... [and] that maintains the pressure of the entire international community on Baghdad could be useful,” Francois Rivasseau, the spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry, said Friday.

But the spokesman insisted that the use of force should be addressed in a separate, second resolution if U.N. inspections do not work or Iraq otherwise defies the international community.

If at some point a U.S. military strike seems inevitable, analysts say, they do not think French leaders will join the adamant opposition expressed by Germany and other dovish governments.

“The conversations now are about under what conditions France could join a military effort,” said Remy Leveau, a former diplomat and expert on Middle East affairs at the Institute for Political Studies in Paris. “The question is what do we do if they intervene.”

The French are unlikely to go as far as the leaders of Britain, Spain and Italy, who would support U.S. action even if it bypasses the U.N. Instead, France will push for a multilateral response that has some justification in international law if not an explicit endorsement by the world body, analysts said.

France has moved closer to the United States within the last two years regarding the threat posed by Hussein. Nevertheless, French policymakers worry that a regime change could create as many dangers as the current problem, triggering instability in the Middle East and setting up a precedent for “preemptive” attacks among bitter enemies such as China and Taiwan. Already, Russia is making noises about preemptive attacks on neighboring Georgia to hunt down Chechen rebels.

China also is of two minds. It is growing more and more dependent on foreign oil to sustain its breakneck development, and it wants to make sure its supply out of Iraq continues.

At the same time, Beijing wants to avoid a collision course with Washington just a month before President Jiang Zemin is supposed to visit Bush in Texas. Improved Sino-U.S. relations are high on China’s diplomatic agenda.

Analysts therefore expect China to maintain a low profile--essentially to hide behind whatever France and especially Russia decide and to follow their lead.

The one person who will probably get all three opponents off the diplomatic hook is Hussein himself, said Safranchuk, who expects the Iraqi leader to either obstruct U.N. inspectors or to be discovered having cheated about weapons programs in the past.

When that happens, “Russia and the others will be freed from the need to oppose the U.S. military operation--and they can blame it all on Saddam himself,” Safranchuk said.

Times staff writers Sebastian Rotella in Paris, Henry Chu in Shanghai and Maggie Farley at the United Nations contributed to this report.