Global Policy Forum

By Vernon Loeb and Colum Lynch

Despite increasing pressure to "internationalize" the postwar reconstruction of Iraq, the Bush administration is not actively pursuing a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing broader international participation out of concern that greater U.N. involvement could reduce U.S. control.

Five months after the U.N. Security Council refused to endorse the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration and key U.N. members remain at odds over a formula that would relieve the military and financial burdens the United States is bearing almost alone.

Publicly, senior administration officials say that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is "exploring" the possibility of a second U.N. resolution to replace or amend Resolution 1483, passed in late May, which effectively granted the United States control over Iraq's economy and its political process until an internationally recognized government takes power in Baghdad.

"The notion that we are somehow philosophically or ideologically opposed to some type of new U.N. resolution is not accurate," Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, said yesterday.

But when pressed on the issue, administration officials acknowledge that they have concerns about any resolution that would diminish the authority enjoyed by L. Paul Bremer, the chief civilian reconstruction official, and U.S. military commanders to manage the postwar situation in Iraq.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz on Tuesday told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that while the administration "would welcome any resolution that would make it easier for countries to contribute peacekeeping troops," he would be "very concerned" about one that would "put limitations on what Ambassador Bremer and our people can do in Iraq."

Another senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration is not seeking a second resolution because it is satisfied with the financial and peacekeeping assistance it is getting from other countries willing to participate without a broader U.N. mandate.

The administration also believes Resolution 1483 already gives most nations the "political cover" they need to become involved in Iraq, the official said. The resolution states that there is an explicit legal basis for the United Nations, international financial institutions and interested nations to participate in Iraq's reconstruction.

"Whether there needs to be a new resolution or not is an issue for the future, because right now, we believe Resolution 1483 has given sufficient sanction to people to be involved in Iraq," the official said. "Right now, I think we're pretty satisfied with the level of cooperation we're getting."

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said Wednesday that there was overwhelming support among world leaders for a second resolution that would broaden the international presence in Iraq.

His comments came one day after Republicans and Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee expressed similar support, saying a U.N. mandate would enable countries such as India to contribute thousands of badly needed peacekeeping forces.

Two weeks ago, a team of independent experts funded by the Pentagon reported that the United States must immediately mobilize a "significantly broader" coalition to share the burden and to mitigate "rising anti-Americanism in parts of the country."

At the United Nations, Annan said most countries do not feel they have a sufficient U.N. mandate to send peacekeeping forces to Iraq. Annan said those and other countries would be willing to contribute troops only if they were serving under the command of a U.N.-mandated force.

"The legitimacy the U.N. offers is important," Annan said, noting that Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, recently told him, " 'We would want to go in, but we cannot do it under this current resolution.' "

Despite Powell's recent statements that he would be exploring a new resolution, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has informed council diplomats that it is too early to consider a new U.N. mandate for Iraq, according to a senior Security Council diplomat.

The Bush administration has also declined to formally ask NATO to assume command of Iraqi peacekeeping, despite a Senate resolution passed last month 97 to 0 urging the administration to seek NATO and U.N. assistance in policing Iraq.

Britain, Germany and Russia enthusiastically embraced Powell's talk of a second U.N. resolution. But in private they acknowledged that any deal leading to a significant increase in troop contributors would require a number of Bush administration concessions. The administration, they said, would have to open the Iraqi reconstruction market to international competition, set a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis, and cede significant authority to the United Nations.

But they said they expected little movement for the time being.

John J. Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who led the Pentagon-funded fact-finding mission to Iraq, said that the Bush administration and some U.N. member nations are still nursing grudges from the prewar period, when the Security Council refused to endorse a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"There's too much ideology and score-settling here," Hamre said, adding that some U.N. mechanism must be found to grant greater legitimacy to the newly created Iraqi Governing Council and to provide a means for a far broader international coalition to participate in Iraq, including a reconstruction fund administered by the United Nations or some other international body.

Without this, Hamre said, "I don't think the international community is going to open its wallet."

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said the administration is "trying to create the impression that they are internationalizing this," boasting of the participation in Iraq by 30 countries that will have contributed 30,000 peacekeepers by this fall.

But 30,000 troops are not nearly enough to relieve the strain on U.S. forces, he said, and the administration's refusal to seek a second resolution has cost it as many as 45,000 additional troops from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Germany and France.

Biden said he found the administration's reluctance to cede some control in Iraq baffling. "What are we giving up?" he said. "Are we giving up the right to get shot alone?"

Feith said, "Our goal is not to turn Iraq over to any international organizations. Our goal is to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis."

Lynch reported from the United Nations.

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.