Britain Details Criteria for Iraq

WASHINGTON — In a bid to find common ground on the polarized U.N. Security Council, Britain on Wednesday outlined six tests for Iraq to demonstrate its “full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation” with the disarmament ordered by the United Nations.

After a late-night session, Britain also floated the idea of dropping a Monday ultimatum to fully comply, although U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte said Washington was willing to consider only a modest extension.

Britain described the new package as “a trial balloon to see if it’s a way out of our current difficulties,” British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock told reporters. “It will certainly concentrate people’s minds that unless you use this repair job, the hole on the ship will sink the ship.”

The six new demands, combined with intense U.S. pressure on Security Council members, are designed to win over undecided votes for a resolution that would, in effect, authorize war. They require President Saddam Hussein to admit in a statement aired on all Iraqi national media that his regime has a concealed arsenal and that he has made a “strategic decision” to fully surrender it to the United Nations. He would then be required to declare that failure by any Iraqi to cooperate would be a crime.

The Iraqi leader must also “immediately” resolve all outstanding questions, destroy any prohibited weapons, volunteer information on any ongoing weapons activities and enact “comprehensive” laws making production of weapons of mass destruction a crime. But exactly six months after President Bush first appealed to the United Nations to confront Hussein, the proposal did not appear to break the diplomatic deadlock. Germany and Russia dismissed the proposals as still leading to the automatic use of force against Iraq and continued to push for France’s suggestion of 120 more days of inspections and progress reports.

The proposed tests, outlined in a “side statement” to the existing U.N. resolution and released at the United Nations, also include sending at least 30 Iraqi scientists, selected by weapons inspectors and accompanied by their families, out of the country for interviews. Scientists are considered the key to finding an arsenal and tracking anything Baghdad has produced since the first team of inspectors left in 1998, U.S. officials say.

Other tests include destroying any remaining supplies of anthrax as well as surrendering any mobile chemical and biological weapons production labs, demolishing all Al-Samoud 2 missiles and accounting for newly discovered drone aircraft.

If accepted by the Security Council, the demands could give Baghdad a choice: If Hussein passes these tests, war could be averted and inspectors would continue their mission. If he does not, then he would face disarmament by force.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair first outlined the ideas Wednesday at a stormy session of Parliament in an attempt both to win support for the resolution pending at the United Nations and to prevent a walkout by the antiwar camp of his own Labor Party. Blair’s political career is increasingly on the line because of his strong stand alongside the United States.

Behind the scenes, London has pressed the United States to extend the Monday deadline, which the Bush administration may be willing to do by less than 10 days, U.S. and British official said.

But the United States and Spain, co-sponsors with Britain of the proposed resolution, have not formally signed on to the tests proposal, although it was issued after consultations with Washington. “We are associated with it, but we are not fully supporting it yet. We are trying to give it some traction,” said a U.S. envoy in New York.

“The proposal sets out the kinds of things that help answer the question, ‘What do you mean when you say that Iraq has made a strategic decision to disarm?’ Our own answer might be a bit different from Britain’s.” He also said the deadline was the “last thing” they would negotiate.

As the discussions dragged on, Bush huddled with his top foreign policy and military advisors to chart strategy. On his third straight day of intense telephone diplomacy, he also talked to the leaders of Russia, Pakistan, Britain and Spain.

“The president is going the last mile for diplomacy. We shall see if the other nations are willing to go that last mile,” White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said.

Either way, the White House is already drafting the text of an address to the nation to follow the final U.N. discussions. One draft includes an ultimatum to Hussein with a deadline for compliance, U.S. officials said.

By some counts, the United States may be just one vote shy of the nine votes needed for the required majority at the Security Council, after signals of support from Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, the three African members of the council, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

“I wouldn’t deny that we are making progress, but I don’t want to mislead you into thinking that we’ve got it in the bag,” State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher told reporters. “We stay fixated on the rule that you don’t count your chickens until the cows come home.”

Washington focused heavily Wednesday on Mexico and Chile, which have stood together through this process. The two Latin American nations may now hold the key to a majority, and while Mexico may be more flexible, Chile appears to be holding out.

“We’re working on their concerns and, if we can, that will have some impact on the overall situation,” a senior State Department official said.

Washington and London are hoping that they can use the nine votes as leverage over the nations who have promised or hinted at vetoes.

“If we can achieve a deal for the nine votes, the kaleidoscope changes again and we can go back to the Big Three permanent members [France, Russia and China] and say, ‘Think about the future of the United Nations, the European Union, NATO -- and can’t you find a way to abstain?’ ” said a diplomat involved in the talks.

After days of courting key council members, the administration has stepped up the pressure, explaining what would happen to countries that voted against the United States.

“We don’t want people to think this is cost-free, although we do have alliances and they will continue. We want to make that clear that goes both ways. People have to think more seriously about this,” the senior State Department official said.

Bush pressed his case with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, another indication that Washington still believes Moscow may be willing to reconsider its rejection of the resolution. America’s top diplomat in Moscow warned Russia of the serious consequences to relations if it does cast a veto.

In an interview with the national newspaper Izvestia published Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said that expanding cooperation in areas such as the energy sector, security, missile defense and space could be jeopardized.

“It will be a great pity if progress in these fields is postponed, or even reversed, because of the serious disagreements over Iraq. There is a huge difference between Russia’s veto and its decision to abstain from voting. These moves will be interpreted in a totally different way by the American people and Congress. Russia should carefully weigh all the consequences,” he told the paper.

At a Moscow news conference, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham also warned that Russia’s vote could not be “simply ignored” and that actions carry “consequences.”

The administration is also visibly angry at French President Jacques Chirac, whose declaration this week that his country would veto any version of the resolution sends “precisely the wrong signal to Baghdad for those who want peaceful disarmament,” Boucher said.

The Security Council vote, which has now slipped from this past Monday to Friday at the earliest, may be even further deferred.

“We want to wrap up this week. We’re trying to get the broadest support we can,” said the U.S. envoy in New York. “But as long as we’re making progress, why stop?”

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Britain’s demands

Britain proposed the following steps for President Saddam Hussein to take toward proving Iraq’s disarmament:

* A television appearance renouncing weapons of mass destruction.

* Permission for 30 key weapons scientists to travel to Cyprus to be interviewed by U.N. inspectors.

* Destruction “forthwith” of about 2,600 gallons of anthrax and other chemical and biological weapons Iraq is suspected of possessing.

* Hand-over of biological weapons and explanation of production.

* Commitment to destroying banned missiles.

* Accounting of drone aircraft.

Wright reported from Washington and Farley from the United Nations. Times staff writers Janet Stobart in London, Robyn Dixon in Moscow, Sebastian Rotella in Paris and Doyle McManus in Washington contributed to this report.