DATE: Thursday, November 13, 1997           TAG: 9711130433

SECTION: FRONT                   PAGE: A4   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: FROM WIRE REPORTS 

DATELINE: WASHINGTON                        LENGTH:  157 lines

FOCUS: THE FRAYING GULF COALITIONFOR SIX YEARS, THE UNITED STATES HAS HELD TOGETHER A COALITION OF WESTERN AND ARAB STATES IN ITS TEST OF WILLS WITH IRAQ. BUT TODAY, FOR REASONS RANGINGFROM ECONOMIC INTERESTS TO ARAB SOLIDARITY, THE COALITION NO LONGER EXISTS AS A MILITARY FORCE.

With each day, Bill Richardson, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, learns how limited the U.S.-assembled coalition against Iraq really is.

Against heavy odds, it has held together for six years of Iraqi mischief through a combination of praise, pleas and threats from the United States. But if the coalition remains intact as a diplomatic force, it no longer exists as a military one.

``The alliance is fading,'' said Simon Serfaty, director of European studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a professor of international studies at Old Dominion University. ``On the other side of the Atlantic, they don't question the U.S. objectives, but they do question how to carry out the objectives.''

The coalition still firmly rejects the Iraqi position. Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council condemned Iraq for interfering with weapons inspections and approved a ban on travel by Iraq's leadership.

Along with Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Richardson had spent days imploring his colleagues from Europe and Asia to get tougher on the Iraqi leader.

But disagreements remain with some members of the council, including France, Russia and China. American diplomats around the world are trying to get support for a resolution that would endorse military force if the U.N. weapons team makes no progress and leaves Iraq.

That approach has drawn little enthusiasm.

In public and in private, most allies have taken a softer line against Iraq than has Washington. The French have made no secret of the fact that they want to do business in Iraq, which has oil reserves and needs billions of dollars of rebuilding. And Russians say they do not want to bow to Americans on foreign affairs.

Nevertheless, U.S. officials say that behind the scenes, the French and Russians have been pressuring Iraq to submit to the U.N. weapons inspections that it agreed to accept after the Persian Gulf War. And the Security Council president, Qin Huasun of China, has sent a message to Saddam Hussein telling him to fulfill his obligations to the U.N.

The negotiations over Wednesday's resolution showed just how difficult it is to satisfy the other Security Council members. A draft prepared by the Americans for the 15-member council Monday night threatened ``serious consequences'' unless Iraq backed down and allowed weapons inspections. That was a clear signal that military force could be used.

But diplomats familiar with the negotiations said the Russians objected strongly and the French were almost as vehement. By Tuesday afternoon, the Americans had reluctantly toned down the wording to read that it is the U.N.'s ``firm intention to take further measures.''

Even the travel ban on the Iraqi leadership triggered a dispute. Several Arab diplomats didn't want to single out individuals in Baghdad responsible for interfering with the weapons inspectors. By Tuesday afternoon, the resolution failed to name anyone.

Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, said all the talk of an attack on Baghdad is rattling the allies.

``Let's say you do retaliate against Saddam Hussein: What happens if you use military force and then he still says no to the weapons inspectors?'' Korb said. ``Are you prepared to send in Marines?''

U.S. officials concede that there is a big difference between getting support for a resolution demanding cooperation from Saddam and gaining support for a military strike. They know that the coalition could fall apart quickly if the United States were to launch an attack against Iraq without an additional serious provocation by Saddam.

Such a provocation is possible, said James M. Goldgeier, an assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, who is writing a book about U.S. decision-making and European security. ``When people talk about Saddam Hussein, they focus on the fact that this is a guy who knows how to stay in power, but he's prone to miscalculation in foreign policy,'' he said.

While Wednesday's resolution warns of ``further measures'' unless Iraq obeys council orders, it doesn't declare that Iraq is in violation of the 1991 Persian Gulf War cease-fire - a condition that could trigger U.N. military strikes.

U.S. diplomats are working hard to preserve a united front in the council. But they warn that, if necessary, the United States will go it alone.

Iraq has held off on its threat to shoot at American U-2 spy planes flying U.N. monitoring missions in its airspace. Those reconnaissance flights are not scheduled to resume until next week, removing one potential flash point.

There is growing anger in the Arab world at what it perceives as heavy-handed U.S. dealings with Iraq.

Western diplomats and political analysts in Baghdad and Amman, Jordan, say a military option would be extremely difficult to pull off and could easily backfire.

``To really hurt Saddam Hussein with a military strike you have to go for a hit on a presidential palace or a Republican Guard barracks, but the civilian loss would be so high,'' said a diplomat in Amman who frequently travels to Baghdad. Hundreds of Iraqis have moved into one palace in downtown Baghdad, offering themselves as human shields to protect Saddam.

The decision by the Iraqi president to challenge the 7-year-old sanctions has netted him a publicity victory, analysts said.

``Iraq is trying to refocus world attention on itself,'' said Kamel Abu Jaber, president of the Institute of Diplomacy in Amman and a former Jordanian foreign minister. ``The last couple of years, the world forgot about Iraq. Nothing happened. What Saddam did was partly designed to shock the world and wake them up to what is happening inside his country.''

The U.N.'s much-ballyhooed oil-for-food deal, almost a year old, allows Iraq to sell about $2 billion worth of oil in order to pay back reparations to Kuwait for the 1990 invasion and buy food and medicine for Iraqis. In the past year, Iraq purchased $900 million worth of food and $250 million of medicines, and paid $600 million in reimbursement to Kuwait.

Even U.N. officials say the humanitarian aid is not enough.

Eric Falt, spokesman for the program, said in a telephone interview from Baghdad this week that the food program ``keeps Iraqis at a survival level.'' Under the plan, each Iraqi receives 2,000 calories of basic foods a day, a basket that includes flour, rice, sugar, tea, cooking oil and baby formula. Falt said the basket should ``ideally'' total more than 2,500 calories per person daily. The giveaways include no proteins.

But it is the lack of medicines that's attracting much of the attention. Falt and several health professionals said the country needs substantially more than $250 million a year in medicine. But even that allocation is being held up by Security Council delays in approving contracts.

Falt said that in the past year only 40 percent of the medical supplies under the U.N. deal actually reached Iraq.

Tony Maryon, head of the Jordanian Red Crescent Society, who returned from Iraq three weeks ago, called Iraq's medical system ``very grim, appalling.''

He said the United Nations had agreed to deliver 558 items of medicine and supplies to one hospital in southern Iraq, but had delivered only 15 items so far.

``We have reports of useless IV sets, fluids that weren't up to quality,'' he said. ``Most operating rooms are closed because they have no anesthetics or disinfectants. Hospitals have no heating systems, so they have to be closed in the winter. Basic things like sheets for beds, or uniforms for staff, are almost nonexistent.''

There is widespread belief among Arab analysts that Saddam would welcome a military strike.

``It would expose the United States as an enemy of the Iraqi people, an enemy of Arab people,'' said Radwan Abdullah, a political scientist in Amman. ``What if missiles hit Republican Guard barracks? So what? Do you think Saddam Hussein cares if he sacrifices those people? He only gains politically.''

In Baghdad, a diplomat said in a telephone interview that the level of fear was rising. ``There is a definite beginning of maybe not panic, but of the ordinary Iraqi people becoming worried,'' the diplomat said.

At gas stations, lines of cars stretched more than 200 yards; anti-aircraft batteries took positions on the perimeter of Baghdad - and, the diplomat said, ``wherever you go in this city, the military is everywhere. People here don't know what is coming our way.'' MEMO: This story was compiled from reports by The Boston Globe and

Knight-Ridder News Service. ILLUSTRATION: ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTOS

Navy personnel unload a missile...

Iraqis burn a U.S. flag in Baghdad...

Members of a United Nations inspection team... KEYWORDS: IRAQ PERSIAN GULF U.S.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu