NYTimes.com Article: U.S. May Be Forced to Go Back to U.N. for Iraq Mand

This article from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by threehegemons@aol.com.


Will Bush appear barefoot at Dag Hammerskold Plaza?

Steven Sherman

threehegemons@aol.com

/-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\

Explore more of Starbucks at Starbucks.com.
http://www.starbucks.com/default.asp?ci=1015
\----------------------------------------------------------/

U.S. May Be Forced to Go Back to U.N. for Iraq Mandate

July 19, 2003
 By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS 




 

WASHINGTON, July 18 - The Bush administration, which
spurned the United Nations in its drive to depose Saddam
Hussein in Iraq, is finding itself forced back into the
arms of the international body because other nations are
refusing to contribute peacekeeping troops or
reconstruction money without United Nations approval. 

With the costs of stabilizing Iraq hovering at $4 billion a
month and with American troops being killed at a steady
rate, administration officials acknowledge that they are
rethinking their strategy and may seek a United Nations
resolution for help that would placate other nations, like
India, France and Germany. 

Administration officials contend that they are being
practical, but within their ranks are policy makers sharply
critical of the United Nations and those who would consider
it humiliating to seek its mantle after risking American
lives in the invasion that ousted Mr. Hussein. 

The administration's quandary deepened today, when Russia
announced that it would consider sending peacekeeping
troops but only with a United Nations mandate that set out
a specific mission and timetable. 

President Bush's meeting this week with Kofi Annan, the
United Nations secretary general, was part of a flurry of
consultations in recent days between administration and
United Nations officials. Condoleezza Rice, the national
security adviser, reached out to diplomats on the Security
Council, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell emerged
from a meeting with the German foreign minister, Joschka
Fischer, saying he was discussing ways to expand
international support for the Iraq occupation, including
seeking a new United Nations resolution. 

Mr. Powell said Security Council Resolution 1483, which was
approved in May and calls on all members to assist in
Iraq's reconstruction, should be enough "cover" for
countries to claim an endorsement from the United Nations.
But he acknowledged that the nations that matter most are
not buying that. 

"There are some nations who have expressed the desire for
more of a mandate from the United Nations, and I am in
conversations with some ministers about this, as well as
with the secretary general of the United Nations," Mr.
Powell said. 

The discussions reflect a growing sense that the
reconstruction of Iraq will require a new international
alliance. For all their rapid success in the military
phase, the American-led forces are struggling to establish
stability and normalcy in Iraq. A Pentagon advisory panel
that just returned from Iraq reported a pressing need for
international assistance. 

Even supporters of the administration's policy say its
efforts are in jeopardy, and minute military planning gave
way to disarray once the major combat ended. 

"It's increasingly clear there was really some
underestimation of the number of people who would be
required after the regime fell, and the length of time
required to stay there," said Paul Saunders, director of
the Nixon Center, a nonpartisan research organization whose
honorary chairman is Henry A. Kissinger. 

Mr. Saunders said there were two reasons for the United
States to go back to the United Nations. 

"It would be helpful to diffuse responsibility for this
massive undertaking, and share any dissatisfaction with
others and not be the sole target ourselves," he said.
"Externally, it's also helpful in rebuilding some of the
relationships that were strained in the dispute over going
in." 

Several nations have chafed at the idea of submitting their
troops to American-British control. Others, which clashed
with the United States and withheld support for a
resolution authorizing war, want to tweak Washington for
disregarding them. 

India dealt the administration a sharp blow this week,
refusing to send peacekeeping troops unless they operated
under the auspices of the United Nations. The
administration, which had lobbied New Delhi strenuously,
had been hoping for a full division of 17,000 peacekeepers,
which would have made India the second largest military
presence in Iraq after the United States. 

The administration had been particularly eager to enlist
the Indians, because their presence is widely seen as a
bellwether for numerous other developing countries. 

In Moscow, Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov said that Russia
would consider sending troops but that a new United Nations
resolution was "the most likely way of securing the
participation of a large number of countries." 

One diplomat on the United Nations Security Council said
virtually no additional nations - with the exception of
some in pro-American Eastern Europe - were willing to place
their troops under American or British control in Iraq. "It
would create a lot of problems for them," said the
diplomat, who has been courted by White House officials. 

Currently, 19 nations have a troop presence in Iraq, and
Pentagon officials say 19 more have promised to send
forces. About 13,000 non-American troops are now in the
country, most of them British, compared with about 147,000
Americans. 

Some military experts say the United States should move
quickly to reduce the overwhelmingly American cast to the
occupation. More foreign peacekeepers could relieve
American troops who are already taxed by combat and
extended stays, and now must contend with tedious chores,
like protecting buildings. Peacekeepers from other
countries also might lessen Iraqi resentment toward the
Americans. 

"Iraqis are extremely sensitive about being occupied," said
Robert C. Orr, the Washington director of the Council on
Foreign Relations, who took part in the Pentagon's advisory
panel. "It just doesn't feel the same if an Indian or
Pakistani soldier is on the corner than if it's an American
in Kevlar." 

Administration officials have been reluctant to return to
the United Nations on Iraq matters since the nasty
breakdown of talks in the Security Council over whether to
authorize war. The standoff was particularly damaging to
relations with France and Germany, which sought to give
United Nations inspectors more time to seek prohibited
Iraqi weapons. 

Before the American-led attack, United States officials and
lawmakers chided their longtime allies, and the House of
Representatives banned the term "French fries" from the
cafeteria. Mr. Bush warned that the United Nations risked
fading "into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating
society." 

Apart from the bad blood, administration officials worry
that United Nations participation might force them to cede
operational control over Iraq, even as the United States
continues to pay most of the cost. 

Polls show that the French and the Germans are not
convinced that the war was necessary. But they are eager to
normalize relations with Washington, European officials
say. 

"We are certainly not pleased to see the Americans having
problems, because winning the peace is in the interest of
everyone," said Jean-Marc de la Sablière, France's United
Nations ambassador. 

The administration would particularly like help in covering
reconstruction costs. It has set up a donors' conference
for October but risks falling far short without a
diplomatic breakthrough. 

Mr. Fischer, the German foreign minister, and Christopher
Patten, the European Union's commissioner for external
affairs, discussed the possibility of financial support in
meetings with Mr. Powell this week. 

The catch to Europe's offer is that donations must be
administered by an international organization, the United
Nations Development Program or the World Bank. 

At the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British
ambassador, said it was unclear whether a new resolution
might be offered to placate potential peacekeeping
contributors. "It's a question of what potential
contributors want, whether the Security Council could give
them what they wanted and whether the authority on the
ground could give them what they wanted," he said. 

A senior Indian diplomat in New York said today that some
United Nations diplomats were arguing that the current
resolution acknowledging the allies' control could be
amended to meet the concerns expressed in New Delhi, Moscow
and Paris. Others, he said, think a new resolution is
required. 

Unless such a resolution could ensure that Indian troops
were seen to be serving the needs of the Iraqi people - not
those of the American and British occupiers - the diplomat
said it would be difficult to get popular support for a
decision to send troops. 

In private discussions, Ms. Rice has told diplomats that
greater involvement by the United Nations may be on the
horizon. Mr. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage,
are said to favor a United Nations role, while Vice
President Dick Cheney and his aides have argued against it.


Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said
today that the administration was looking forward to a
Security Council briefing next week by the United Nations
representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and members of the
new Iraqi Governing Council, to advance the discussions. 

Joseph S. Nye Jr., dean of the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University, said it would be philosophically
hard for some administration officials to return to the
United Nations. 

"They'll disguise it; they'll find ways to excuse it," Mr.
Nye said. "For some of them - in particular those who
celebrated that we didn't use the U.N. - it will be
painful." 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/international/worldspecial/19DIPL.html?ex=1059622653&ei=1&en=8f1b8d23e4ec2958


---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://www.nytimes.com/ads/nytcirc/index.html



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help@nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company