Global Policy Forum

"Nations Oppose Automatic Attack"

United Nations, New York -- Wary of the United States acting on its own, China, Russia and France are opposing any U.N. resolution that would not require a Security Council ruling on whether Iraq has violated a weapons inspection agreement. The U.S.-backed resolution proposed by Britain and Japan would threaten ``very severe consequences'' if Iraq violates the accord, which Secretary-General Kofi Annan signed in Baghdad on Monday. That phrase was toned down from ``severest consequences'' in an earlier draft to make it more acceptable to the rest of the council.

But diplomats from China, Russia and France oppose any resolution that would lead to an automatic military response, raising doubts that the resolution in its current form would pass. America's U.N. ambassador, Bill Richardson, said he would not accept a weaker measure. The Russian and French diplomats said they could accept a resolution only if it clearly spelled out that the council would have to authorize military action.

``What is important is the fact that it should be up to the Security Council to take a decision'' on a response, said French Ambassador Alain Dejammet. Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said it would not be wise to make any response automatic since a violation could have different interpretations. `We can consider this language provided it is very clear that it will be upon the determination of the council when and if a violation takes place,'' he said. China, too, opposed any automatic trigger of military action, a Chinese diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity. If the resolution gave the Security Council the authority to approve military action against Iraq, any one of the five permanent members could veto such action. British diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the latest draft of the resolution would be referred over the weekend to the capitals of the 15 council members for a possible vote Monday or Tuesday. A council diplomat from a country that supports the resolution said the sponsors were more interested in getting as many ``yes'' votes as possible than in delaying the adoption to press for strong language, which Russia, China and others would likely never accept. The diplomat refused to be identified by name or nationality. Britain was taking the lead in drafting the resolution to back the accord Annan reached with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, which averted U.S.-led strikes on Iraq. The agreement calls for Iraq to give U.N. inspectors ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access'' to all suspected weapons sites. A team of diplomats would accompany inspectors to eight presidential sites that Baghdad had previously declared off-limits, sparking the crisis. The inspectors must certify that Iraq has destroyed its weapons of mass destruction before sanctions imposed after Baghdad's 1990 invasion of Kuwait can be lifted. While council approval of Annan's accord is not required legally, a resolution would give it political backing -- and if Britain, America and Japan are successful -- a codified and automatic response to Iraqi violation. Richardson said the resolution's goal was ``to send an unmistakable signal to Iraq that it must comply with the agreement to open up all the sites or it will face serious, serious consequences.'' He said the resolution would be weakened by adding that the council had to give the OK for military strikes if Iraq violated the agreement. Aziz, the Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the British Broadcasting Corp.'s Arabic-language service that the push for a resolution shows a lack of respect for Annan's authority. Iraq will ``respect the memorandum we signed and we'll apply it very seriously,'' despite having little faith in U.N. inspectors, Aziz said in an interview broadcast Friday on French channel TF1. Also on Friday, Brazil, which joined the council Jan. 1 for a two-year term, lined up firmly behind Russia, China and France in trying to limit the possibility of force against Iraq.