U.S. to seek tests to show that Iraq resists disarming

Washington - Seeking more persuasive evidence that Iraq continues to defy United Nations weapons inspectors, the Bush administration plans a set of final specific tests over the next two weeks of Saddam Hussein's willingness to disarm, administration officials said today.

At the same time, despite growing resistance at the United Nations to authorizing force against Iraq, the administration intends to put forward, as early as Tuesday, a new Security Council resolution that would declare Iraq out of compliance with disarmament and authorize "serious consequences" if it continues on that path. American officials hope that skeptical nations will support the resolution if Iraq fails the new tests.

"Within days you will have a decision by the United States on an early resolution at the United Nations," an official said. Meanwhile, he added, United Nations weapons inspectors were preparing a set of "benchmark" tests for Iraq that could also be presented this week, perhaps formally by the United States or other Security Council members.

The administration's determination to maintain pressure on Iraq, but to continue doing so through the United Nations, was also signaled today by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain.

Speaking before a Labor meeting in Glasgow as antiwar demonstrations spread across Europe, he harshly criticized Mr. Hussein, saying that if a million protesters marched, "that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started."

Still, Mr. Blair said, "I continue to want to solve the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction through the U.N."

Administration officials said that President Bush would confer over this three-day weekend with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and that they would talk with allies to decide the wording and timing of the next Security Council measure.

Despite what appeared to be a setback at the United Nations on Friday for the American-led effort to win international backing for military action against Iraq, officials say Britain and the United States have decided that the new resolution will specifically threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" — code words for the use of force.

The threat will be made in light of Iraq's failure to comply with arms inspections, the officials say.

But the other part of the administration's strategy is no less important, especially given the opposition to force by France and other countries, officials said. That part relates to its plans to present Iraq with specific tasks over the next two weeks, which would make clear, even to skeptics like France, the extent of its willingness to cooperate.

The tasks would include allowing weapons inspectors to interview Iraqi scientists without government "minders" present, destroying missiles that were recently found to have greater range than the United Nations allows, and permitting unconditional overflights by American, European and Russian reconnaissance aircraft. Iraq has so far refused to go along with those steps.

"We are looking for some early benchmarks, specific things that the Iraqis will have to do to show full compliance," an administration official said. He said Hans Blix, a leader of the United Nations inspections team, agreed to setting such benchmarks soon when he met with Mr. Powell and others on Friday after the contentious session at the Security Council.

British and American planners hope that, once it is obvious that Iraq is refusing to carry out those tasks, Mr. Blix will tell the United Nations forthrightly that Iraq is failing to comply with the disarmament demands of Security Council Resolution 1441 of last November.

On Friday, Mr. Blix delivered an assessment of Iraqi cooperation that was interpreted very differently by the United States and by France and other skeptics of using force.

The ambiguity of Mr. Blix's statement, coupled with his rebuttal of certain information presented by the United States as evidence of Iraqi misconduct, dismayed many in the American and British governments.

Mr. Blix's concluding statement on Friday was that "the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if `immediate, active and unconditional cooperation' " were "forthcoming."

American officials seized on this wording as proof of their contention that Iraq has fallen far short of the "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" that was specified in Resolution 1441. The French, on the other hand, took from this same language the suggestion that without such cooperation, inspections could still work but that they might take longer.

The session on Friday, which exposed a deep split among Security Council members, was still being analyzed by participants today.

Some said the passionate presentation by the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, left "wiggle room" for France to participate in an eventual decision to go to war. Others doubted that.

A French official said today that Mr. de Villepin's statement meant that the only way that France would agree to use force would be if Mr. Blix and his colleague, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, found that they could no longer do their work "because of Iraqi refusal to cooperate."

American officials acknowledged that they probably did not have enough votes on the Security Council to authorize "serious consequences" against Iraq. But they also noted that France's proposal for a resolution authorizing the doubling or tripling of the inspectors also did not have enough votes to pass.

Despite Mr. Blix's public statement, administration officials said he and the other inspectors were privately more skeptical of Iraq's motives when they met separately with members of the Security Council on Friday.

"In private, a lot of people were more appreciative of the situation than they were in public," an administration official said.

For example, in his public remarks Mr. Blix cited Iraqi willingness to pass laws and set up commissions to cooperate with weapons inspectors, but in private he was said to understand that those were mere gestures, having more to do with "process" than results. The administration official said Mr. Blix had been careful to avoid making judgments about Iraqi conduct, and his approach led to the ambiguous wording of his statements.

Administration officials hope that Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei will be more emphatic about Iraqi noncompliance in their next presentation to the Security Council, in about two weeks.

Military officials said that they did not expect to be ready to attack Iraq until mid-March in any case, and that an attack would be acceptable in late March or early April, even with the onset of warm weather that some fear could hamper combat. -- New York Times

Brudirect.com