Global Policy Forum

By Steven R. Weisman and Felicity Barringer

The United States is battling France, Russia and others in Europe over American efforts to try to curb the role of the United Nations in governing and rebuilding a postwar Iraq, and once again Britain, Washington's staunchest ally in the drive toward Baghdad and the diplomatic war that preceded it, is trying to play the role of mediator. The British prime minister, Tony Blair, who arrived here this evening for meetings with President Bush, has said he wants to use this trip to press Washington to accept some kind of United Nations blessing for the occupation, even though the Security Council failed to approve a resolution on the war this month.

Mr. Blair seemed to acknowledge a struggle ahead, telling reporters on his flight from London, "I have no doubt at all that there will be a whole process of consultation and discussion about these things, but the important thing is that we end up with something that is U.N.-endorsed." As in the past, there is also discord behind the scenes on this issue within the Bush administration, American officials said today. The Defense Department was described as wanting the United Nations limited to coordinating certain aid programs and not involved in governing or peacekeeping. But Secretary of State Colin L. Powell advocates a significant role for the United Nations, in part to mute the expected adverse world reaction to a British-American occupation in Baghdad, the officials said.

"The United Nations will have a role to play," Mr. Powell said today in an interview with an Indian television network. He said that the role remained to be defined, but that there was no "major difference" between Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush in this regard. Much of the dispute centers on the long-term future governance of Iraq. Early skirmishing over the issue erupted in the past week at the Security Council, where members were still recovering from the acrimonious split on Iraq. The focus has been on a resolution to reactivate a six-year-old program supervised by the United Nations and Iraq that uses Iraqi oil profits to pay for food and medicine for millions of Iraqis who have no other source for either. The program was suspended when the war began.

A draft resolution from Secretary General Kofi Annan, largely supported by the United States and Britain, gives the United Nations broad authority to remake the program to fit the aid crisis on the ground, and coordinate with the "relevant authorities." The Russian and Syrian representatives have argued against the mention of "relevant authorities," which they fear might effectively legitimize an American-installed government, and pushed to have language included specifying the aid obligations of the "occupying power." Council diplomats said today that the current draft, including disputed portions of the text, would be sent to the home governments on Thursday. It was unclear late today whether a consensus could be forged and a draft presented for a vote before the end of the week. One diplomat who attended the expert committee meeting last night said that five issues remained in significant dispute.

American and other officials said ruefully that the dispute reflects the continuing bitterness of the clashes over the resolutions at the Security Council authorizing the war in the first place. "The French and Russians are going to make it difficult for the Americans to do anything on Iraq," said a diplomat involved in the negotiations on the oil-for-food measure. "That's becoming increasingly obvious." President Bush has not yet decided what sort of arrangement to seek in a postwar Iraq, administration officials said. They added that his meeting with Mr. Blair on Thursday would be a significant exploration of the options.

But diplomats said that a sign of American intentions lay in its demands on the oil-for-food program, which an administration official said should be run by the United Nations only temporarily as "a limited, defined, short-term kind of program." The current draft resolution would reauthorize the program for 45 days. Eventually, administration officials say, they want the oil-for-food program to be turned over to a new Iraqi governing authority, although it is not clear how much independence that authority would have from American and British occupation forces, which many expect to stay in Iraq for a year or longer.

Many diplomats involved in reconstruction of war-ravaged countries — from Afghanistan to the Balkans to East Timor — say the American plans to quickly install a new government are unrealistic. That is especially the view among relief agencies based in Europe, which are expected to raise much of the money for Iraq. "What they're really thinking of is a puppet government in Baghdad, where they pull the strings," said a development official involved in talks about the future of Iraq, referring to Washington's intentions. "That's not politically possible."

The debate over this issue has been sharpened by the active involvement of Presidents Jacques Chirac of France and Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who have said they will not accept an American or British occupation force governing Iraq without participation by the United Nations. Their comments were echoed by leaders of the European Union, which endorsed the idea of a broader United Nations authority a week ago. "It's imperative for Tony Blair to use his influence on Bush," a senior European official said. "Europeans are frankly not anxious to see their assistance delivered under a military flag in a war whose validity is disputed by so many of us." Asked today about the continuing reluctance of France to join in any undertaking that implied legitimization of the war, Mr. Blair said, "I have no doubt at all that France will be involved in the reconstruction."

But Mr. Blair's hard-line stance on Iraq and close partnership with Mr. Bush have cost him support in many Continental capitals and have undermined his capacity to be a leader trusted by Europeans to convey their concerns to Washington. Some legal experts say United Nations involvement is virtually inevitable, whether the Americans want it or not. That is because Iraq is subject to stiff economic and political sanctions imposed by the Security Council, where France and Russia have a veto along with China, Britain and the United States. Only the Council can lift them, giving the veto-bearing members of the Council considerable leverage. But by all accounts, Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush both oppose having the United Nations run the occupation directly. Rather they are said to prefer that the United Nations give its blessing or serve as a coordinator for international relief efforts, and perhaps a measure of the reconstruction efforts.

The secretary general emphasized today that his role would be determined by the Security Council. But in an open session this afternoon he said two "guiding principles" should govern "all decisions on the future of Iraq." They are, he said, "respect for Iraq's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence," and "respect for the right of the Iraqi people to determine their own political future and control their own natural resources." He added: "In the last few months the peoples of the world have shown how much they expect of the United Nations, and of the Security Council in particular. Many of them are now bitterly disappointed." To restore the lost faith, he said, Council members must "make a concerted effort to overcome their differences."

American officials said they are adamant that an indigenous Iraqi civil authority get up and running as quickly as possible, perhaps even within a month after armed forces secure the country. Their approach, officials said, is to divide that authority between Iraqis now in the country and Iraqis abroad, many of whom are active opponents of Saddam Hussein. "There's a useful role for the U.N., not only in humanitarian things but also other things," said an administration official. "But I would say we're talking about a U.N. role, not U.N. rule."

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.