Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines

IRAQ: U.S. Hits Another UN Roadblock

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 14 2003 (IPS) - The United States has hit yet another diplomatic roadblock as it tries to manoeuvre a new U.N. resolution aimed at marshalling foreign troops for a multinational military force for Iraq and donor funds to rebuild that war-devastated country.

”The current resolution does not represent a major shift in the thinking of the (U.S.-UK) coalition,” U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters Tuesday.

Annan, who rejected a previous U.S. resolution on Oct. 2, less than 24 hours after the United States began circulating it among members of the Security Council, has strong backing from three key members of the Council – France, Germany and Russia, who have also distanced themselves from the United States.

Annan annoyed Washington by rejecting the first resolution, which, he said, was ”not going in the direction I had recommended”. The ‘New York Times’ quoted unnamed U.S. officials calling the secretary-general’s comments ”unusual”, ”unhelpful” and ”surprising”.

Annan’s comments Tuesday are expected to draw even sharper criticism from the United States.

Along with France, Russia and Germany, the U.N. chief wants a more specific time frame for transferring ”sovereignty” to the Iraqi people, thereby downgrading the political role currently played by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) led by Ambassador Paul Bremer, the highest ranking U.S. civilian in Baghdad.

But the new draft resolution delegates ”sovereignty” to the 25-member, U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, which has been dismissed by most Iraqis as an ”American puppet”.

Asked about the proposed ”sovereignty” of the Governing Council, Annan said: ”Well, it is a nice phrase, but the resolution also says that the occupying power is the (Coalition Provisional) Authority.”

”So in my judgment, the occupying power is the government, will remain the government, whether this resolution is passed or not, until such time that power is handed over to the Iraqis. And I think the resolution recognises that,” he added.

Annan also reiterated his view that ”as long as there is (military) occupation, the (Iraqi) resistance will grow”.

The new resolution, which is co-sponsored by Britain, Spain and Cameroon, reflects a public appeal that U.S. President George W. Bush made before the General Assembly last month. He urged member states to provide troops for a new multinational U.N.-mandated peacekeeping force that would relieve the pressure on the 130,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

Besides Britain, which has provided over 11,000 soldiers in Iraq, other foreign nations providing mostly token contingents include Italy, Portugal, Romania, Mongolia, Denmark, Lithuania, Norway, Albania, Latvia and the Czech Republic.

But the United States has been specifically seeking troops from Islamic nations, including Turkey, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Only Turkey has so far agreed.

The proposed resolution also urges member states to provide funds for the reconstruction and development of Iraq. An international donors conference is scheduled to take place in Madrid, Spain, Oct. 23-24.

The United States is currently spending about 3.9 billion dollars every month on the military occupation. President George W. Bush is also seeking from Congress a hefty 87 billion dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even while it seeks funds from international donors, the Bush administration is refusing to loosen its political and economic stranglehold on Iraq.

The 15-member European Union (EU) has already called for the creation of a ”transparent” multilateral donor fund to replace the current U.S.-run Development Fund for Iraq.

”If the United States keeps a tight grip on the reconstruction of Iraq, it fuels suspicion that the purpose of the March 2003 military action (against Iraq) was to enhance U.S. political and economic control in the region,” John Quigley, professor of law at Ohio State University, told IPS.

Rachel Bronson, director of Middle East Studies at the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations, said that officials of the Bush administration are not convinced that they would get any additional money or support, even if they scrupulously followed European and United Nations advice.

”It has become somewhat evident that countries such as France will provide neither soldiers nor money. This takes away any incentive for the United States to listen to them,” Bronson told IPS.

”If the EU was saying, ‘we will contribute X billions of dollars if the United States increases its transparency regarding reconstruction, or even transitions some control to the United Nations’, I believe that the American people would demand that the administration comply, if only to defray the whopping 87 billion dollars requested for reconstruction,” she added.

This is especially true, Bronson pointed out, as the United States enters a presidential campaign season, with Bush up for re-election in November 2004.

The speculation is that the United States will be able to get the necessary nine of 15 votes in the Security Council – with no vetoes – to ensure the resolution is adopted. It is expected to be put to a vote before the end of this week.

The Council’s five permanent members with veto powers are the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Although Russia and France have expressed reservations, they have not threatened to veto the resolution.

Asked if the credibility of the United Nations would be at stake if the Security Council adopts a resolution that turns out to be empty because troops are not sent to Iraq, Annan said: ”That’s a tough question. I think when the Council passes resolutions it always hopes that the resolution will have an impact, and I don’t think they will make the effort to pass a resolution that will have a useless impact.”

”It is not a question of finding words, to stitch words together, to bring delegations together. We need to think of the impact the resolution and our action will have on the ground, because that is the test of the effectiveness of a resolution,” Annan added.