Global Policy Forum

By Brian Knowlton

The United States on Monday laid down a tough marker for UN weapons inspectors when they return to Iraq - "zero tolerance" of any interference - but France said that the permanent members of the UN Security Council remained divided on the inspectors' mandate and any use of force against Baghdad for noncompliance.

The United States called the meeting, the first for the five veto-holding members in two weeks, to distribute a new draft resolution on Iraqi disarmament. Reports said it was meant to allay Russian, French and Chinese concerns by giving the council a larger role in reviewing the success of inspectors and making the threat of force less automatic.

But even while replacing a tough reference to using "all necessary means," which is commonly considered to include military force, with a vaguer threat of unspecified "consequences" for Iraq, the White House made clear that it wanted to use the most sensitive of triggers in assessing noncompliance.

"We will have zero tolerance for any violations of a UN resolution," said Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman.

In an apparent sign of division within the administration, Fleischer also played down suggestions by two top officials of a new willingness to allow President Saddam Hussein to remain in power if he fully satisfies U.S. demands for disarmament.

Both Secretary of State Colin Powell and the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said Sunday that full disarmament and other measures by Saddam could effectively meet U.S. demands for "regime change." Fleischer said that was highly unlikely.

"The policy is regime change, however it is defined," Fleischer said.

And Powell hinted Sunday that the United States was set to act against Iraq with or without UN diplomatic cover. "Either Iraq cooperates, and we get this disarmament done through peaceful means," he said on ABC-TV, "or they do not cooperate, and we will use other means to get the job done."

Despite reports from U.S. sources that the Security Council negotiations were near fruition, the latest U.S. draft apparently still faces reservations from France, which might seek changes. Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said Monday, on his way into the meeting, that he did not think the five permanent members were close to agreement.

But U.S. diplomats were continuing broad-ranging efforts to secure support. John Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control, was meeting Monday in Moscow with Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and his deputy, Yuri Fedotov, for talks that were expected to include the Iraqi standoff.

The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was to meet Ivanov on Tuesday in Moscow.

Fedotov warned again that Moscow would oppose any U.S. draft resolution permitting "automatic use of force" or putting "unfeasible" demands on Baghdad, The Associated Press reported from Moscow. But he also suggested that the new U.S. draft was "a result of joint efforts,"' by the United States, France and Russia.

Russia, China and France have been loath to authorize an attack without giving Iraq a reasonable chance to comply with demands to fully divulge and destroy its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. They insist on a Security Council voice in deciding whether Baghdad's response warrants the use of force; some United Nations members have complained that the United States appears already to have decided to attack.

The Bush administration, meantime, has made increasingly clear that it wants the swiftest, most all-inclusive inspections possible.

As the administration moves forward both on diplomatic and military tracks, Pentagon planners have an eye on the calendar. Conditions for an attack are considered best in the first few months of the year, before summer heat and sandstorms.

"This is not going to be a matter of waiting six months to see what happens," an administration official told The New York Times, referring to the inspections process. "It's going to be a matter of watching every day to see what the Iraqis do."

Fleischer said that the U.S.- and British-backed resolution would set a period for Saddam to agree to comply with its terms, and a second period to provide a full accounting of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Any weapons uncovered by inspectors and not on the Iraqi list would be viewed as a violation, Fleischer said.

"If they fail to list, and then any are discovered, Iraq would have again violated a resolution," he said.

Iraq pledged to destroy its biological, chemical and nuclear arms after the 1991 Gulf War, when a U.S.-led coalition expelled its forces from Kuwait. UN weapons inspectors, assigned to find any remaining weapons, left in 1998 amid complaints of Iraqi interference and Iraqi countercharges that some inspectors were spies.

The new U.S. draft, according to excerpts obtained by Reuters, gives arms inspectors a central role, as demanded by most countries around the world and requests a report from the arms experts before any possible military strike.

But some UN diplomats have questioned the U.S. demand that inspectors be accompanied by U.S. and other officials, and have their own armed guards in case of confrontations with Iraqi forces trying to impede their work.

The use of security guards could provoke the Iraqis, some diplomats say, and perhaps be used as a pretext for a U.S. call for force.

The new U.S. draft proposals would call on UN weapons inspectors, searching for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, to report to the Security Council any violations by Baghdad. This could delay any military strike Washington has in mind as the Security Council would then meet to consider action.

But should the council not authorize force, the United States could point to provisions in its new proposals that say Iraq has been warned of "serious consequences."

France wants a two-stage procedure, one to lay down demands for Iraqi disarmament, and a second resolution to authorize force, if needed.

Gulf War 'miscalculation'

The United States erred in expecting Saddam to fall from power after his defeat in the Gulf War, former President George Bush said on Monday, Reuters reported from Chicago.

"We thought Saddam Hussein would leave power," Bush told a mortgage banking conference.

But the former president, commander in chief of U.S. forces during the conflict, defended his decision not to occupy Baghdad and depose the Iraqi leader.

"We would not have had the support of our allies if we had entered Baghdad," he said. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and possibly France would have withdrawn support if U.S. soldiers had occupied the capital, he said.

Forcing the removal of Saddam also would have been beyond the mission goals of U.S. and allied forces, the former president said.

Still, Bush said the United States may have made a "miscalculation" to expect that the defeat would prompt Saddam's removal by Iraqis. "We underestimated his brutality to his own people," he said.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.