Global Policy Forum

By Steven R. Weisman and Felicity Barringer

The Bush administration has run into such stiff opposition at the United Nations Security Council to its plan for the future government of Iraq that it has pulled back from seeking a quick vote endorsing the proposal and may shelve it altogether, administration officials said Tuesday. Two weeks after President Bush appealed at the United Nations for help in securing and reconstructing Iraq, administration officials said, his top aides will decide soon whether it is worth the effort to get a United Nations endorsement.

Originally, the administration said United Nations approval of American plans for the next phase of postwar Iraq would encourage other countries to contribute money or troops. Now the tone has shifted to one of living without such help, if necessary. "We don't want to play this game for a long, long time," said a senior administration official, reflecting a certain exasperation with the Security Council. "This is as much a choice for the Council as it is for us. They can be multilateral and be part of it, or they can tell us to do it ourselves."

The new pessimism about winning United Nations support results from the cool reception accorded to the administration's most recent draft on Iraqi self-government, which was supposedly redrawn to take into account suggestions of Security Council members. What little momentum there was behind the American proposal was deflated after the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, disclosed his own reservations last week, much to the surprise of administration officials. Mr. Annan, according to diplomats who have talked to him, essentially takes the view of the French that the violent attacks on Americans in Iraq would subside once an interim Iraqi government was established, perhaps in a matter of months.

The violence in Iraq is continuing, with three American soldiers and an Iraqi translator killed by roadside bombs late on Monday. "We really are at a pause right now," said an administration official. "A number of countries were leaning in our direction. But after the secretary general's statements, they became leery about supporting something he opposes." Administration officials sought to avoid saying anything critical of the secretary general. Instead, they variously called his comments "unusual," "unhelpful" and "surprising."

As things stood on Tuesday, officials said, the administration faced two unpalatable options. One was that it would not win the votes to pass a resolution to its liking; the other was that its victory margin would be so thin that approval would send a signal of a divided Security Council rather than one that wanted to help. The principal point of contention between the United States and Britain, on the one hand, and Mr. Annan, France and other Council members on the other, is the American intention to retain full control over Iraq during what could be a long period of writing a constitution, holding elections and restoring sovereignty.

Mr. Annan's comments were especially compelling to Council members because he warned that in light of the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad in the summer, he could not in good conscience send his personnel into a dangerous environment to play a role subordinate to the American occupation. "We just have a basic difference with the secretary general on this," said a senior administration official. "He has the model of Afghanistan in mind. He wants us to use an old constitution, set up an interim government right away and move toward elections later on. But that's not the right model."

Indeed, many American officials say that if the United States tried to set up the existing Iraqi Governing Council - handpicked by the American-led occupation authority last summer - the attacks on American forces and Iraqi targets would only intensify. "The Governing Council is not seen as legitimate by the Iraqi people," said the administration official. "They're not ready to take power." Among other things, various officials say, the Governing Council is dominated by former exile groups installed by the occupation but widely disliked by many Iraqis.

One senior United Nations official, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested last week that a new government could be formed by combining the Governing Council with two groups it has appointed, the cabinet and the constitutional committee, and then adding other Iraqis to produce "a quasi-legislative body" of about 100 people. This, he said, might serve as an interim government. Just two weeks ago, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell expressed confidence in a meeting at The New York Times that the United States had the votes to pass a resolution reflecting its approach. Mr. Powell said the Governing Council would be given a deadline of six months to write a constitution. But within days of that comment, Iraqi leaders said the deadline was unrealistic.

At the United Nations, the combination of Council members' comments on Monday and the remarks of John D. Negroponte, the American envoy, on Tuesday made it clear that a week of efforts had failed to narrow the differences between the American approach and that of other countries, including France, Russia and China, all veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council. "It's certainly still our intent at the moment to press ahead with this resolution," Mr. Negroponte said. But he added that the United States was in no mood right now to change its approach on the timing of a transfer to Iraqi sovereignty.

France is regarded by the Bush administration as the most unalterably opposed to the American timetable. Other countries, like Germany, are sympathetic to the French view, American officials say, but are in more of a position to compromise on a resolution, perhaps by incorporating a timetable toward self-rule laid down in Baghdad by the Governing Council itself.

Russia, some officials said, was turning out this week to be not as helpful in supporting the American position as it had earlier seemed. Other reservations about the American resolution have been voiced by some of the countries that declined to back a resolution clearing the way for the Iraq war last spring, including Chile and Angola. Ismael Gaspar Martins, the Angolan ambassador, said Monday evening that any resolution needed to send "a clear signal" that the American-led occupation was temporary. The Chilean ambassador, Heraldo Muñoz, added that the reservations Mr. Annan voiced last week created "a new reality in front of us, one that must be accommodated."

American officials say that if the United States decides against getting endorsement for its approach in Iraq, it is not clear what aid it would be able to get from donor countries around the world, or from those countries being asked to send troops to Iraq. Turkey is willing to send troops in without United Nations endorsement, administration officials said. But Pakistan, South Korea and others may not do so. India, an American official said, appeared unwilling to send troops even if the United Nations endorsed the transition.

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.