By John M. Goshko
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 28, 1998; Page A20

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 27—A U.S.-backed drive for a Security Council resolution that would allow the United States to subject Iraq to "very severe consequences" if it breaks its agreement for U.N. weapons inspections ran into opposition today from Russia, France, China and other countries.

At issue is a draft resolution submitted tonight by Britain with U.S. support that would put Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on notice that Iraq faces such consequences if it fails to live up to a weapons inspection agreement it negotiated last week during Secretary General Kofi Annan's visit to Baghdad.

The United States, which deferred threatened military measures against Iraq to give the agreement a chance, wants a resolution supporting the accord to contain an "automatic trigger" that would permit taking action against Iraq without any further council action if Baghdad breaks its promises.

As originally proposed, the draft resolution used the language "the severest consequences," but its supporters today softened it to "very severe consequences" in hopes of building support. Such language is sufficiently vague that it cannot be called an automatic green light for military action, but Washington contends it already has that authority under existing council resolutions.

However, diplomatic sources said that France, Russia, China and council members belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, all of which have opposed military strikes, are insisting that any resolution require further council consideration before force is authorized. The sources said these countries are agreeable to warning Iraq of potential consequences but, as of now, refuse to accede to the idea of an automatic trigger.

France, Russia and China are, like the United States and Britain, permanent council members with the power to veto any decision. And Brazil, apparently acting on behalf of nonaligned countries, is seeking to have the proposed resolution state specifically that the full council should determine if Iraq has violated the inspection agreement before any individual country is empowered to take action.

Negotiations on the resolution are to continue into next week. But if the opposition to the automatic trigger remains firm, the Clinton administration would face a potentially serious problem with American conservative critics. Many advocated going ahead with air and missile strikes, and, in contrast to the wide international backing for Annan's efforts, the conservatives have denounced the agreement for allegedly turning vital U.S. policy interests over to the United Nations.

Administration officials have supported the agreement, despite reservations, in part because they believed Russia, France and other countries would be more likely to support future U.S. military action if Iraq flouts such a recent pledge to the Security Council. The agreement negotiated by Annan calls for U.N. inspectors searching for prohibited weapons programs to have unrestricted access to suspected sites. In the case of eight sites that Iraq claims are vital to its national security, the inspectors are to be accompanied by diplomats.

The administration has answered critics by saying it was best to go along with the worldwide call for giving Annan's diplomacy a chance. If Iraq shows bad faith, Washington argues, the military option can be revived. For that reason, the United States considers it important to have a resolution that in effect acknowledges Washington's right to turn back to that option without further lengthy wrangling by the council about whether it is justified.

As encouragement to Iraq, the draft resolution reiterates the Security Council's intention to consider lifting sanctions once Iraq is certified to have complied with its promises to disarm made at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The United States argues that it does not need any further authorization for military action because, in the U.S. view, the authorization is contained in existing Security Council resolutions. In particular, U.S. diplomats and many legal experts say, Iraq's obstruction of U.N. inspections violated the terms it accepted in exchange for the cease-fire ending the gulf war. If the cease-fire is no longer extant, this argument holds, the United States, or any other country that took part in the gulf war, is free to resume hostilities.