US stance on Iraq: a UN compromise now likely

As horse-trading continues over a proposed new US-British UN resolution that threatens Iraq with force, indications are the Bush administration may be willing to bend.

Washington is pressing for a single resolution, a de facto ultimatum. But with much of the world suspicious of President Bush's motives, opposition has stiffened. China supports France's go-slow approach – first a resolution on resuming weapons inspections, then a second authorizing force if Iraq is uncooperative – and Russia may follow suit.

The draft US resolution – leaked last week – was written in particularly tough language. The UN Security Council meets this week to discuss which demands the US will jettison, versus the "red lines" beyond which it will not yield.

"It's hard to categorize what the red lines will be, but we want a resolution that will give inspectors total access to any site they want, at any time," says a Bush administration official. "And we want a resolution that will basically say to the Iraqis, 'If you continue to violate UN resolutions, there will be a price to be paid.' To date they haven't paid one."

In exchange for unfettered access to all sites, say analysts, the US may be willing to back away from language explicitly calling for consequences yet still leaving the door open for military acton. For example, the US would refer to UN Resolution 687, which marked Iraq's formal surrender after the Gulf War and demanded its full disarmament. It was passed in 1991 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows for force to deal with a state deemed the aggressor. The new resolution could likewise make specific reference to Chapter VII.

With the Chapter VII option, perhaps the most important UN demand would be hard deadlines and a full Iraqi declaration of whatever chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons it had or has, says David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, who visited in Iraq 1996 as an IAEA inspector.

"From the declaration, it would be obvious to experts if Iraq were willing to comply," says Mr. Albright. "That's why sending in inspectors is a hollow exercise: until you get a declaration or a clear indication that Iraq is going to cooperate and come clean, don't go in. [If you get the declaration] you send in the inspectors, and if you find Iraq is lying, it will be then be legitimate for Bush and whichever allies to take it upon themselves to disarm Iraq."

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix is in Vienna this week meeting with Iraqi officials, discussing logistics for when his inspectors will return.

But the quality of the UN inspections is already a concern, says Albright. He criticizes Mr. Blix for appearing to go along with Iraqi insistence that weapons inspectors be accompanied by government officials who will likely inhibit Iraqi scientists from being candid about Iraq's weapons programs. Scientists should be able to speak freely, Albright says, and inspectors ought to administer lie-detector tests if deemed necessary.

Page: 1 | 2