Global Policy Forum

By Evelyn Leopold

United Nations, New York - Britain formally submitted a draft Security Council resolution late on Friday warning Iraq of "very severe consequences" without apparently making major concessions to France, Russia and China. The new document changes the warning to Iraq from "the severest consequences" to "very severe consequences" a slight softening of language should Iraq violate its promise to allow U.N. arms inspectors to search all sites for weapons of mass destruction and related materials.

No vote has yet been scheduled, although Britain and its co-sponsor, Japan, would like adoption on Monday. But action could be delayed, depending on instructions members receive from their respective capitals over the weekend. The new text, like earlier versions, does not say the council has to take another decision in determining a violation by Iraq or authorizing the use of force, apparently leaving this provision open to differing interpretations.

France, Russia, China and Brazil have said the document needed to make clear that the use of force against Baghdad would not be automatic and would require another council decision. Their view on the latest draft was not known immediately. At issue is an agreement negotiated in Baghdad by Secretary-General Kofi Annan that sets up special procedures for U.N. arms inspectors searching for dangerous arms and related materials in so-called "presidential sites."

The draft expresses appreciation for the pact and stresses that Iraq must comply with its commitments under that accord. In an inducement to Iraq, the draft resolution reiterates the council's intention to consider lifting sanctions -- mainly a ban on oil sales -- once it was agreed Iraq had completed all the disarmament requirements contained in a 1991 Gulf War cease-fire resolution. Some countries had wanted a stronger commitment toward easing sanctions, imposed in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. But no major changes were submitted by Britain and Japan for this provision either.

"The American position is that there should be an unmistakable sign to Iraq that if they fail to comply there will be the severest consequences," said U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson earlier in the day. France, Russia and China and France had briefed seven developing nations on the council, known as the nonaligned group. According to those at the meeting they said the resolution should: endorse Annan's agreement, call for its quick implementation, strengthen language on the eventual lifting of sanctions and contain no automatic use of force. After the meeting Brazil proposed an amendment to prevent any hint of a military strike.

Although the text does not spell out the nature of the "consequences," it would put the United States and Britain on firmer legal ground for any military action and attract more international support. Both countries are maintaining a large force in the Gulf, despite the apparent winding down of a crisis sparked by Iraq's refusal to grant U.N. inspectors access to so-called "presidential sites."

On Thursday night, Annan canceled a scheduled three-day trip to Washington next week to remain near the negotiators in case "there were continuing questions about the agreement," his spokesman Fred Eckhard said.

Republicans in the U.S. Congress have criticized the pact, with North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms saying Annan "gave away the store." Other senators said the United Nations was running U.S. foreign policy. But diplomats said the Clinton administration had little choice but to back Annan's visit to Baghdad or it would have been isolated in a military campaign fought in the name of enforcing U.N. resolutions.

While Annan said clearly he could not have bargained successfully without the U.S. armada in the Gulf, U.N. sources also noted that the United States needed the world body to keep international sanctions in place and to organize the arms inspections.