By Steven R. Weisman
New York TimesApril 4, 2003
The United States and its European allies proclaimed today that they had reached a broad consensus that the United Nations should play a significant role in the postwar reconstruction of Iraq, but they remained divided over many of the details of how extensive that role should be. After a long day of back-to-back meetings between Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the foreign ministers of 23 European countries, it was apparent that many of the differences that divided the allies over going to war against Iraq would remain as they faced the issue of Iraq's future.
Mr. Powell said that at least initially the military coalition led by the United States and Britain "has to play the leading role in determining the way forward" but that "this is not to say that we have to shut others out and not to say that we will not work in partnership with the international community and especially with the United Nations." Sounding a somewhat different note, several European leaders said the United Nations should play more of an organizing role as quickly as possible. The European Union has said that only some kind of an international imprimatur on the occupation can avoid continuing bitterness in the Middle East about the war.
The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, who led the successful drive to thwart United Nations authorization of the war last month, said that "when the time is ready, we believe that the United Nations should have a central role to play." But he said that as a practical matter, its role could be phased in. Despite these differences, American and European officials said they were extremely pleased with the relatively harmonious atmosphere they had managed to establish only a few weeks after the United Nations discussions on Iraq dissolved in acrimonious accusations on the eve of President Bush's decision to go to war.
Mr. Powell said he sensed "a coming together of the trans-Atlantic community to work on the rebuilding" of Iraq. And Mr. de Villepin emphasized that France would look past his previous battles with Mr. Powell. "I think we should be very pragmatic," he said. Mr. Powell kept to a nearly frantic pace here, holding more than 20 one-on-one meetings and broadcast interviews, all intended to demonstrate that the United States still cared about European leaders' opinions. Few denied that the divisions of the past several months over Iraq continued to be painfully felt. But they sought to emphasize the urgency of getting past them.
The secretary general of NATO, Lord Robertson, was asked whether his optimism about the future meant that all the past divisions had gone. "I'm always optimistic, but I'm not stupid," he said. "Of course it has been a difficult period to go through, but I believe that after today's meeting we have been through the worst." Many Europeans cited the need to involve Iraqis in a postwar government as quickly as possible. Chris Patten, the European Union's commissioner for external relations, said it was imperative not only to have a major United Nations role but also to involve members of the current Iraqi government, as well as the governments of neighboring countries.
"All those things are blindingly obvious," Mr. Patten said. "What is less obvious is exactly how you sequence all these arrangements. I think that even if he didn't know before, the secretary of state is now very well aware of the importance which the European Union attaches to a U.N. role." United Nations administrators are adamant about their unwillingness to undertake any responsibility unless they are assured of wholehearted international backing. Mark Malloch Brown, director of the United Nations Development Program, told reporters at the United Nations today that bitter experiences in the Balkans and Africa showed that the United Nations "should never again take on responsibilities for which it didn't have the capacity, the financial resources or the political will." Today's discussions produced a consensus that an international peacekeeping force could help in securing the country after the fighting stops. But British and American military authorities are adamant about wanting full latitude to deal with truck bombings, guerrilla attacks or other likely disturbances in a postwar Iraq without having to get permission from an outside authority that was unsympathetic or split over the war in the first place.
On the other hand, Mr. Powell and others in the administration say the Europeans are right to believe that a full United Nations role might help lend legitimacy to a postwar occupation. Lord Robertson said there was an "emerging consensus" about the importance of the United Nations. But there was less consensus, others said, about whether NATO would be involved in peacekeeping. Lord Robertson said that "some nations" favored a NATO role and that "none excluded it." What distinguished the session here from the discussions of the last several months, he said, was "a complete lack of acrimony." He praised Mr. Powell for coming to consult, listen and report on the American view of the war. On that score, Mr. Powell was upbeat, as he has been in recent days, spreading the word that he had full confidence in the war effort despite criticism about tactics being heard from officers in the field. It was "a very successful day from my perspective," he said.
As for the postwar government of Iraqis, Mr. Powell said its membership would be "a combination of those who struggled on the outside as well as those on the inside." The selection process may well be a major point of contention in the future, Bush administration officials said. Mr. Powell was asked by a skeptical European journalist why American and British armed forces had not yet found any evidence of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, which Mr. Bush made a reason for the war. "We will continue to search for weapons of mass destruction, and I'm quite confident they will be found," Mr. Powell said.
More Articles on the War Against Iraq
More Information on Iraq
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
