By Thomas W. Lippman and William Drozdiak
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 18, 1998; Page A55

Major U.S. allies in Europe and Asia lined up yesterday in strong support of the military strikes against Iraq by the United States and Britain, describing the missile attacks as a necessary if not welcome response to Iraq's defiance of the U.N. Security Council.

But the missile strikes have opened a wide fissure in relations with Russia, which last night called home its ambassador to Washington in a symbolic diplomatic protest.

U.S. allies agreed with the assessment by President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that the intransigence of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein foreclosed all nonmilitary options.

"Despite all the efforts by the United Nations over several months, diplomacy has not been successful," NATO Secretary General Javier Solana said in Brussels. "Saddam Hussein has continued to violate the U.N. Security Council resolutions. . . . He alone is responsible for the grave situation and for the consequences that his defiance of the will of the international community has entailed."

Diplomats from allied nations said their governments were notified only hours before the strikes began early Thursday morning in Baghdad, but said the short notice was not the same as lack of consultation. The situation that led them – sometimes reluctantly – to endorse military action a month ago, when a last-minute promise of compliance by Iraq led Clinton to abort airstrikes that had been ordered, remained basically the same, the diplomats said, and it was not necessary to forge agreement all over again.

Only Britain is participating in the military campaign alongside the United States, but U.S. officials said they did not ask other countries to take part.

"Among our allies, we have been pleased by the strong expressions of support we have received from Canada and the [European Union], Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand," Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said, later adding Norway and Denmark to her list. "They point out that Saddam Hussein bears the responsibility for the military action now underway as a result of his defiance of the Security Council and his obstinate refusal to honor his obligations under binding Security Council resolutions."

However, she did not claim that allied endorsement of the missile strikes implied endorsement of what she said yesterday was the "longer-term" U.S. aim – ouster of Saddam Hussein – and some said they were not prepared to go that far.

"It depends, frankly," Albright said at a State Department news conference. "There's some – I think its inappropriate for me to really go into it."

"Our objective is full compliance with the U.N. Security Council resolutions and curtailment of Iraq's capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction," said a diplomat from a NATO country. "That's as far as it goes."

Albright shrugged off criticism of the airstrikes by Russia and China, longtime opponents of the use of force.

"The Russians and Chinese are critical, of course, but over the past year they have failed to provide any viable alternative," she said. In criticizing Richard Butler – the Australian diplomat and chief U.N. weapons inspector, whose negative report on Iraqi cooperation with the inspections prompted Clinton to order the airstrikes – Albright said the Russians are "trying to shoot the messenger" when "the problem here is Saddam Hussein."

Those remarks seem sure to further annoy the Russians, adding to a growing list of irritants in the relationship between Washington and Moscow.

In a display of anti-American rhetoric rarely seen since the end of the Cold War, Russia's lower house of parliament, the State Duma, passed a resolution denouncing the "barbarous acts" of the United States and Britain, and accusing them of "international terrorism."

In a statement released by the Kremlin, President Boris Yeltsin said "by taking unprovoked military action, the United States and Britain have crudely violated the U.N. Charter and generally accepted principles of international law and the norms and rules of responsible behavior by states."

Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev canceled his scheduled appearance at a NATO-Russia consultative session here Friday to protest the air raids. Kremlin officials said the raids had all but dashed hopes that the Duma would ratify the 1993 START II nuclear arms reduction accord by month's end. Some Russian legislators demanded an urgent review of Moscow's relations with the United States, Britain and NATO.

Asked about the Russian response, Albright said they were venting their "frustration" at their inability to obtain Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the Security Council. Russia should ratify Start II in its own interest, not as a favor to the United States, she added.

Last night, Russia announced it was recalling its ambassador to Washington, Yuli Vorontsov, for "consultations," a common form of diplomatic protest. The gesture is largely symbolic because Vorontsov has retired and was about to go home anyway, but Albright took note of it.

"Secretary Albright has been informed that Russia is recalling its ambassador," State Department spokesman James P. Rubin said. "That's unfortunate, but we will continue to work with Russia on a variety of levels on issues of interest to both our countries. . . . "

China's reaction was at least as negative as Russia's, and its official statements reflected the increasingly close security ties between the two giants.

"We were deeply shocked by this act and we condemn it," said China's ambassador to the United Nations, Qin Huasun. "This unprovoked military action is completely groundless."

"We urge the United States to immediately stop its military action toward Iraq," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi in Beijing. "The United States has not received permission from the U.N. Security Council, and took unilateral action in using force against Iraq, violating the U.N. Charter and international principles."

No such commentary was heard at a NATO meeting in Brussels.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose new ruling alliance of Social Democrats and Greens had grave doubts about taking military action against Serbia over its actions in the province of Kosovo, gave an unqualified endorsement to the attacks on Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein had to know that the international community could not tolerate his behavior," Schroeder said. "There is no question whatsoever about our solidarity with the international community, and with our alliance partners the United States and Britain."

Even the Netherlands' Labor government, which often has been identified with pacifist leanings, declared its full support for the airstrikes. Prime Minister Wim Kok said Saddam Hussein's behavior had made the attacks "unavoidable," though he stopped short of declaring that Dutch forces would participate in the bombing campaign.

Australia, Spain and Canada, which has often criticized the United States for not moving fast enough toward nuclear disarmament, also backed the air raids. Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said that "Saddam alone" had provoked the crisis, and accused the Iraqi leader of pursuing a deliberate strategy of deception, "at an immense cost to his country."

Only Italy and France expressed reservations about the recourse to bombing. Speaking in Parliament, Italy's Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema demanded an immediate halt to the airstrikes and declared it was time to change an international strategy based on "painful and ineffective" economic sanctions.

A statement by French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine articulated France's deeply conflicted position: While France deplores military action, it has been unable to develop an effective diplomatic alternative.

Vedrine said Saddam Hussein has betrayed France's tireless efforts on Iraq's behalf and undermined his own position by not living up to his commitments to the United Nations. The Iraqi government "bears the entire, or in any case the primary, responsibility for the situation. . . . ," Vedrine said.

In private, senior French officials have told their U.S counterparts that they are upset – "completely disgusted" – with Saddam's actions and, perhaps just as objectionable to them, with the position Saddam has put them in.

Lippman reported from Washington, Drozdiak from Brussels; correspondents David Hoffman in Moscow, T.R. Reid in London, Charles Trueheart in Paris and John Pomfret in Beijing and special correspondent Sara Delaney in Rome contributed to this report.