Go to Original
U.S. abandons plan for greater U.N. role in Iraq
Rather, Bush administration will seek help from other countries to assist occupation forces.
By Steven R. Weisman with Felicity Barringer
The New York Times
Wednesday 13 August 2003
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials said on Wednesday.
Instead, the officials said, the United States would widen its effort to enlist other countries to assist the occupation forces in Iraq, which are dominated by the 139,000 U.S. troops there.
In addition to American forces in Iraq, there are 21,000 troops representing 18 countries. At present, 11,000 of that number are from Britain. The United States plans to seek larger numbers to help, especially with relief supplies that are coming from another dozen countries.
Administration officials said that in spite of the difficult security situation in Iraq, there was a consensus in the administration that it would be better to work with these countries than to involve the United Nations or countries that opposed the war and are now eager to exercise influence in a postwar Iraq.
"The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, 'We really need to make Iraq an international operation,"' said an administration official. "You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but, right now, the situation in Iraq is not that dire."
The administration's position could complicate its hopes of bringing a large number of American troops home in short order. The length of the American occupation depends on how quickly the country can be stabilized and attacks and uprisings brought under control.
The thinking on broadening international forces was disclosed on Wednesday as the United States moved on a separate front at the Security Council to get a resolution passed this week that would welcome the establishment of the 25-member Governing Council set up by the United States and Britain in Iraq.
Security Council diplomats said on Wednesday that they expected the resolution to pass, but not without some qualms among some members.
In a measure of these misgivings, the diplomats said that the wording of the resolution was changed at the last minute on Wednesday morning from saying that the Security Council "endorses" the Iraqi group to saying that the council "welcomes" it.
The resolution would also establish an "assistance mission" of the United Nations in Baghdad to support various U.N. activities there. Both steps were sought by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan who had been under some pressure from Washington to make a gesture to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation.
The American-led occupation picked the Governing Council members in July, appointing people who represented a mix of ethnic and sectarian interests to oversee Iraqi ministries and begin the process of drafting an Iraqi constitution.
Several Governing Council members have visited the United Nations, and, earlier this month, Annan said he favored "some form of recognition" for the Governing Council through a Security Council resolution.
The resolution drafted by the United States and submitted on Wednesday was perfunctory compared to previous council resolutions on Iraq.
Administration officials said that they expected to win the approval of the council, although it was possible that Syria would abstain or vote against the resolution. Only a negative vote from the so-called Permanent Five members of the council — Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States — would constitute a veto.
Though the administration has decided against seeking a separate resolution to give the United Nations any authority over security, some officials say that consideration might be given to getting wider U.N. authority over the multi-billion dollar reconstruction of Iraq.
A meeting of potential donor countries has been scheduled for Oct. 24 in Madrid, and some of the big European countries that wanted a more significant U.N. role if they sent peacekeepers are also hinting that they wanted the U.N. to have more of a say over reconstruction if they have to put up huge sums of money for that effort.
In Iraq this week, J. Paul Bremer, the top American administrator in the occupation, said that over the next four years, the amount of money needed from outside for Iraq would be "staggering." Many experts say it could amount to tens of billions of dollars.
The Bush administration has been reluctant to give the United Nations more than minimal authority in the reconstruction of Iraq. Many administration members say that France, Germany, Russia and other countries demanding such a role are actually doing so to try to get more contracts and economic benefits for themselves.
The desire for more U.N. involvement by many countries echoes the debate that preceded the war. Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others were openly disdainful of getting U.N. authorization for the war, even after Bush had sided with Secretary of State Colin Powell to pursue that route.
Rumsfeld, according to administration officials, vehemently opposes any dilution of military authority over Iraq by involving the United Nations, either through U.N. peacekeepers or indirectly in any U.N. authorization of forces from other countries.
American military officials say they fear that involving the U.N., even indirectly, will hamper the latitude the United States must have in overseeing Iraqi security and pursuing anti-American guerrilla forces or terrorist actions.
A setback in the drive to line up countries occurred in July, when India, in a reversal, said it would not participate without further U.N. authority over peacekeeping. France, Germany and some other countries agreed.
Some administration officials said they would now rethink their strategy of spurning the United Nations and see if there could be some language worked out in a Security Council resolution as sought by India and the other countries.
In effect, administration officials now say, such a resolution would be more trouble than it is worth. Soundings among members of the Security Council indicated that Russia, France and other countries might try for concessions favorable to them in the running of Iraq, and such demands would only deepen divisions between them and the United States.
"The last thing we need is a loss of momentum over the efforts to get things under control in Iraq," said a Western diplomat involved in these discussions. "Besides, the violence in Iraq is not as bad as everyone thinks it is."
Some experts say, however, that sooner or later, the United States may have to change its mind again, particularly if conditions in Iraq deteriorate drastically. U.N. officials involved in peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan and the Balkans say that the total number of troops in Iraq may have to double before the security situation gets under control.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Print This Story
E-mail This Story