UNITED NATIONS - In hopes of getting strong U.N. support, the United States has made concessions in its quest to lift 13-year-old trade sanctions against Iraq, opening the door for the return of U.N. arms inspectors.

But the resolution, expected to be adopted by Friday, still gives the United States and Britain wide-ranging powers to run Iraq and control its oil industry until a permanent government is established, which could take years.

The United States is asking the Security Council to authorize it to do a series of things that would otherwise violate international law under the guise of ending sanctions.

Morton Halperin, a former State Department official and director of the Open Society Institute

The text, the third version distributed on Monday, seeks to accommodate some of the criticism by France, Russia, China and other U.N. Security Council members, particularly what they see as an attempt to sideline the United Nations but obtain privileges the world body has under international law.

While few expect any country to veto the text, the United States wants a large majority in the 15-nation council.

Without U.N. action to lift the sanctions, imposed when Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait in 1990, Washington would be in a legal no man's land, with many firms unwilling to engage in trade with Iraq, and oil exports open to lawsuits.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergei Lavrov said he "welcomed the mood of the co-sponsors to really try their best to respond to as many question as they can." But he said council members wanted "more clarity" at the lack of any time limit or renewal of the resolution.

In deference to Russia, which was favored in contracts by the ousted government of President Saddam Hussein, the resolution phases out the existing U.N.-run oil and civilian supply network over six months instead of four months.

It does not guarantee that all contracts in the so-called oil-for-food pipeline will be honored, such as the $4 billion owed Russian firms, but leaves time to sort them out.

'NEVER SAY NEVER'

On the political role of the United Nations, the draft calls for a high-level special representative with "independent responsibilities." The envoy would "work intensively" with the United States and Britain "to facilitate a process leading to an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq" but his or her duties are still vague.

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Washington could offer further changes but it was unlikely. "Never say never," he said. "But ... we have gone just about as far as we can in meeting the concerns expressed by other delegations."

The resolution, he said, foresaw no role for U.N. arms inspectors. But the new text mentions their mandate in U.N. resolutions since 1991, and opens the door for their return to verify Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Most controversial is shielding Iraq's oil revenues and a special Development Fund set up to administer them until 2008 from any lawsuits, attachments or claims. This is usual for a fund administered by the United Nations but not one over which the world body has no power.

However, the new text says buyers of Iraqi oil are not necessarily immune from suits, such as cases of oil spills.

Money from the fund can be spent by the United States and Britain for the benefit of the Iraqi people. An international board, including the United Nations, will monitor the fund.

Troubling to international law experts is the rewriting of the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the duties of occupying powers, such as the United States and Britain. They are not supposed to create a new permanent government or commit Iraq to long-term contracts, such as oil exploration, under the Geneva treaties.

"The United States is asking the Security Council to authorize it to do a series of things that would otherwise violate international law under the guise of ending sanctions," said Morton Halperin, a former State Department official and director of the Open Society Institute in Washington.

"The purpose of this resolution is to relieve the United States of both its obligations and the limits of what it can do as an occupying power under international law by having the Security Council supersede the requirements of the Geneva Convention," he said in an interview.

Copyright 2003 Reuters Ltd

###