U.S.- Gulf War resolutions authorize action against Iraq

UNITED NATIONS -- The latest U.S. quest for Security Council action on Iraq is based on previous Gulf War resolutions that it believes still authorize attacks on Baghdad. The references to the two older resolutions continue to hold back support from allies fearful of triggering another war.

The new U.S. draft resolution, crafted with British support, hinges on an interpretation of the 1990 Security Council vote which launched Operation Desert Storm -- the U.S.-led war to oust Iraqi forces from neighboring Kuwait.

The vote authorized member states, working with the Kuwaiti government, to use "all means necessary," to expel Iraqi troops and restore international peace and security in the area.

When the Gulf War ended in February 1991, the council suspended the authority to wage war and authorized a cease-fire contingent on Saddam Hussein's agreement to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction under the terms of a U.N. inspection regime.

Iraq accepted the terms but then spent years interfering with inspectors and prevented them from continuing their work at the end of 1998.

Today the council is split over whether Iraq's obstruction nullifies the Gulf War cease-fire.

"It all boils down to whether the cease-fire is still in effect," said one council diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Either you believe the war hasn't ended and thus the authorization still exists or you believe that Iraq's original acceptance of the terms of the cease-fire shuts down the authorization."

Still, the diplomat said the Gulf War resolution doesn't authorize the United States to act on its own. "It's very clear that it's about working in concert with the Kuwaiti government. So Kuwait would have to give its acceptance and that's not the case right now."

Kuwait told the Security Council two weeks ago that it wants the council to give Iraq a chance to cooperate with inspectors and opposes the use of military force.

The new U.S. draft resolution, which is being negotiated in the council, significantly beefs up arms inspections and threatens Saddam with consequences if he obstructs them.

In an effort to win council support, Washington agreed to massage the text to include some minor concessions on the new weapons inspections regime.

The revisions were quietly welcomed, but didn't pierce the core of the debate over whether the United States was seeking the authority to act unilaterally if Iraq fails to comply with inspectors.

Powerful players France, Russia and China want that addressed clearly and took Washington to task earlier this week over the references to previous resolutions which are mentioned in the first and third paragraphs of the new U.S. text.

"We continue to see hidden triggers in the form of these references to the old resolutions," a French diplomat said.

U.S. diplomats will not answer outright whether their current draft would clear the way for a war. But they believe they already have international legal ground to act if necessary.

The U.S. feels it doesn't need new authorization since it has authorization from past resolutions and from Congress, said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Interpreting law

Several international law experts agree.

"Legally this resolution isn't necessary for authorizing force but it puts the administration in a much better position if Saddam doesn't cooperate," said Lee Feinstein, who served as the deputy director of policy planning at the State Department in the Clinton administration.

If Iraq scuttles the inspections again, Washington could have a strong case for regime change, he said.

"The administration could argue that the only way to fulfill resolutions on disarmament and on restoring peace and security to the region is to oust Saddam," said Feinstein, now with the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.

The United States initially hoped for quick passage of its draft resolution and, after seven weeks of negotiations, the sides have come closer to agreement. But Moscow, Paris and Beijing continue to oppose language that would allow the United States to attack Iraq without new authorization. from the council.

Complicating matters could be the Chinese presidency of the Security Council for the month of November, giving it control of the agenda and the next Iraq meeting. In 1990, China abstained on the resolution which triggered the Gulf War.

But a U.S. diplomat was confident there will be no problems.

"The Chinese are always very efficient and I think we'll be in excellent hands," the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity.