Ottawa/United Nations/Washington — Canada is spearheading an 11th-hour effort at the United Nations to secure a deal among the major powers that would set a deadline for Iraq to disarm, spell out clearly what happens if it doesn't and possibly save the UN from ripping itself apart over the threat of war.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has been floating the proposal in recent days in a series of phone calls to government leaders in Germany, Russia, France and Mexico, which hold Security Council seats, as well as Italy and Australia, which have become key U.S. allies in the buildup to war.
Sources said a deadline no later than mid-April for Iraq to comply was being considered as a way of pleasing both the U.S. administration and those nations, led by France and Germany, firmly opposed to military action. Mr. Chrétien spoke Wednesday with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, which currently chairs the Security Council.
"It is obvious to him [Mr. Chrétien] that the UN is pretty damned divided and the consequences of this division, if it persists, is going to be very, very serious," a senior Canadian official said.
"The only way we can bridge this 'bomb now or inspect forever' mentality is to say, 'Let's pick a date far enough in the future so we will know if the Iraqis are following through.' "
Paul Heinbecker, Canada's ambassador to the UN, delivered the proposal in a speech at the Security Council Wednesday, saying weapons inspectors should immediately set out a list of "key remaining disarmament tasks," and the UN should establish "an early deadline for Iraqi compliance."
The idea of setting benchmarks and deadlines has been on the minds of many UN-member countries, but Canada is the first to articulate it at the Security Council, an official said.
A U.S. diplomatic source said the Canadian proposal "was noted and was positive."
The proposed Canadian compromise may come too late, as diplomats Wednesday night said another resolution, being drafted by Britain and supported by the United States, was already on its way to the 15-member Security Council. The British resolution would set a much tighter deadline than mid-April, possibly giving Iraq only days to comply with UN demands, a UN source said.
"There is a menu of options," said Britain's UN ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock.
Britain and the United States are not likely to push for a vote, however, until the second week of March, after chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has presented another report to the Security Council.
The diplomatic race did not seem to slow the Bush administration in its own planning to force Iraq to disarm; it stated clearly Wednesday it was prepared for a final showdown at the UN. Ignoring veto threats from France and stiff opposition from other countries, the administration said it intends to force the Security Council to vote on a new resolution, most likely one to be presented by Britain, by the end of next week.
"We are still talking to allies about the exact timing, the exact wording," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "It still could be this week. It could be next week. They both are active options."
U.S. President George W. Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke Wednesday by telephone for 30 minutes about a new resolution, the White House said. The Anglo-American draft resolution is expected to be simple, and to say Iraq is in "further material breach" of last fall's Resolution 1441, which threatened Baghdad with "serious consequences" if it did not comply with UN orders to dispose of its weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Fleischer conceded Wednesday that the United States still does not have the minimum nine votes in the 15-member Security Council needed to adopt a resolution. It also faces a possible veto from permanent council members France, Russia and China, although he suggested the White House was willing to call their bluff.
"There's always a risk of veto of anything at the United Nations," Mr. Fleischer said.
Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham took a differing view from the White House, saying the last Iraq resolution was not clear enough on what "serious consequences" means and that it would have to be "fleshed out" in a detailed new resolution.
"We believe we can still have a peaceful resolution to this if Iraq is given clear indications as to what it must do to comply with 1441, with clear time lines," Mr. Graham said in Ottawa.
His view was shared by a majority of nations speaking Wednesday at the UN. Of the 27 envoys who spoke to the council, only Australia, Japan, South Korea and Peru supported the U.S. position.
The United States also struggled to secure support Wednesday from Turkey, which continued to refuse to agree on a plan to let U.S. forces deploy on Turkish soil for a probable northern front against Iraq. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul after a Turkish cabinet meeting ended with no decision, but did not express hope for a quick answer.
"We are waiting to hear back from the Turks," Mr. Powell said.
The massive U.S. military buildup in the Middle East has so far worked in terms of "keeping Iraq's feet to the fire," Mr. Graham said, crediting the tough U.S. position for some success. The combination of military pressure and intense UN inspection "is working and we want to stay within that process," he said.
"Everybody recognizes that Iraq must be disarmed," he added. "Everybody, including the French and the others who are opposed to an immediate action, recognizes that if necessary, the use of force will be there. The discussion is what steps must be taken and in what time lines."
From Rome, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged more debate, saying the world "should exhaust all other possibilities for a peaceful settlement before war is ever contemplated. And even then, it should only be contemplated when the alternative is obviously worse."
Baghdad's UN ambassador, Mohammed al-Douri, also spoke to the council Wednesday and called on the world to resist a move by the United States to invade his country.
"We call upon all countries of the world to heed the call of the millions of people the world over who during the last few days rejected any aggression or threat of war against Iraq," he said, referring to the antiwar protests around the world on the weekend.
Despite intense international pressure to find a compromise between the divided Security Council members, the UN council chamber Wednesday was more than half-empty when the Canadian position was presented. Mr. Heinbecker, the ambassador, called for a firm deadline for Iraq to account for its stock of deadly mustard gas, VX gas and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as specific questions for the weapons inspectors to answer. "Everyone understands what disarmament looks like," he said.
Away from the diplomatic struggle, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thanked Canada for its recent decision to send troops back to Afghanistan next summer.
"Canada has been a solid ally in the global war against terrorism, and we thank the Canadian people for their support in defending freedom around the globe," Mr. Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing.
At the weekly Liberal caucus meeting in Ottawa, Mr. Chrétien was said to have grinned broadly, and apparently proudly, when an MP congratulated him on his decision to send Canadian troops back to Afghanistan. The decision is widely seen as a reason now for Canada not to send troops to any mission in Iraq.
With reports from Shawn McCarthy and Campbell Clark
