By John M. Goshko
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 19, 1997; Page A20

UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 18—Faced with new evidence of Iraqi defiance, the Security Council today began a new round of debate over how to gain unrestricted access for U.N. inspectors into suspected Iraqi weapons sites. But it quickly became apparent that the 15-nation council is sharply divided about how to persuade President Saddam Hussein to cooperate.

U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson, calling the Iraqi position "discouraging" and "a step backward," said the United States would ask the council to issue a statement reaffirming that Iraq is obligated to obey U.N. orders to cooperate with the inspectors.

However, there is virtually no backing in the council for the tough approach, including possible military action, advocated by the United States. In fact, some council members such as Russia continued to call for conciliatory steps such as easing the severe economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The council started to consider next steps in its stand-off with Saddam Hussein after hearing a pessimistic report from Richard Butler, who heads the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) charged with eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Butler, who returned from Baghdad on Wednesday, said that Iraq refused to provide further information about weapons and vowed that it will never allow U.N. experts to enter Saddam Hussein's palaces and other sites that it insists are vital to its national security and sovereignty.

Diplomatic sources said that in the ensuing debate, the council members agreed that Iraq's stance constitutes defiance of council resolutions. The sanctions cannot be lifted until UNSCOM certifies that Iraq no longer has the capacity to wage war against other countries using sophisticated weapons.

In a report to the council made available Wednesday night, Butler said that during three days of discussion in Baghdad, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz denied that Iraq had any remaining weapons of mass destruction. Butler reported that Aziz also outlined his government's position on five categories of sites: normal sites that can be inspected without restrictions, national security sites that require special procedures for even partial inspection, presidential and sovereign sites that cannot be inspected under any circumstances, civilian-owned sites that can be surveyed only if the owners give permission and foreign-owned sites that require UNSCOM to obtain the owners' permission.

That put greater restraints on UNSCOM than was the case in late October when Iraq began a series of defiant actions that led to the temporary withdrawal of the U.N. inspectors and caused the Clinton administration to raise the possibility of military action. The confrontation was cooled off temporarily when Russia, which has been increasingly sympathetic to Iraq's position on easing sanctions, induced Baghdad to let the inspectors return.

But the question of access still has not been resolved, and sources familiar with today's closed-door debate in the council said that as of now the division between advocates of an unrelenting tough line -- the United States and Britain -- and those arguing for a conciliatory approach -- led by Russia and France -- appears unbridgeable.

Richardson, stressing U.S. determination to work through the Security Council, said the United States will go "step by step because we want to resolve this diplomatically." He said he would seek a "presidential statement" from the council members, a warning to Iraq that does not have the binding force of a security council resolution.

Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov, echoing statements made by Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov at a NATO meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, argued that Iraq is cooperating in some areas. "There must be some practical way to visit the sites, but in a way which respects Iraqi sovereignty," Lavrov told reporters.

The sources said that in the closed debate French Ambassador Alain Dejammet had suggested that the council should defer consideration of any precipitate action until after Butler makes his next scheduled visit to Baghdad on Jan. 19.

Many diplomatic sources here predicted that the situation very likely will drag on through the Christmas holidays -- traditionally a time when U.N. diplomats leave New York -- and into January, especially since the United States seems committed to pursuing the issue through the Security Council, rather than acting alone.

Increasingly, there is a sense here that President Clinton, despite assertions that the United States has not ruled out any options, is unlikely to resort to military strikes. Primakov said in Brussels this week that an "overwhelming majority" of the world opposes using force against Iraq. There is a belief among diplomats here that a massive military strike would cause widespread civilian casualties without any guarantee that force would cause Saddam Hussein to relent.

Clinton said at a Tuesday news conference that he would wait for Butler's report before assessing the U.S. response.

Asked at a briefing today in Washington about the report, the national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, would not address whether it would prompt new action by the United States.