The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Some key quotes: [begin] "The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, 'We really need to make Iraq an international operation,' " said an administration official. "You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but right now the situation in Iraq is not that dire." [end] [begin] "The last thing we need is a loss of momentum over the efforts to get things under control in Iraq," said a Western diplomat involved in these discussions. "Besides, the violence in Iraq is not as bad as everyone thinks it is." [end] In his 17 July report, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed a UN Assistance Mission for Iraq. (1) The proposal was relatively uncontroversial, as was the UN Security Council approving the Mission in the 14 August Security Council resolution 1500. (2) During SCR 1500 negotiations there was some discussion regarding the Iraqi Governing Council. Some Council member states wanted to ensure that the Council didn't recognize and/or suggest that the Iraqi Governing Council is Iraq's legitimate government. [begin] "[D]iplomats said the wording of the resolution was changed at the last minute...from saying that the Security Council "endorses" the Iraqi group to saying that the Council "welcomes" it. [end] (3) SCR 1500 though may be more important for what it omits than for what it includes. On 10 July the US Senate unanimously indicated through a "Sense of Congress" that US President George W. Bush "should consider calling on the United Nations to urge its member states to provide military forces and civilian police to promote stability and security in Iraq and resources to help rebuild and administer Iraq". (4) Presumably, the Security Council would "urge [UN] member states" through a Security Council resolution that would explicitly authorize the aforementioned military and police forces. Such a resolution might make it politically easier, or might even be a prerequisite, for NATO to potentially deploy troops in Iraq. The 10 July "Sense of Congress" supports NATO deployment, stating "The President should consider requesting formally and expeditiously that NATO raise a force for deployment in post-war Iraq similar to what it has done in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo and the Congress urges NATO allies and other nations to provide troops and police to Coalition efforts in Iraq." (5) France and Germany, key NATO members, have said that if there is no Security Council peacekeeping authorization for Iraq, then they will not participate. (6) Several non-NATO countries, including India, Pakistan and the Ukraine, have also stated that Security Council authorization is a prerequisite for their military and/or police deployment. (7) In all three countries, most of the populace seems to oppose their governments sending troops to Iraq. (8) However, reportedly [begin] The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials said today. Instead, the officials said, the United States would widen its effort to enlist other countries to assist the occupation forces in Iraq, which are dominated by the 139,000 United States troops there. In addition to American forces in Iraq, there are 21,000 troops representing 18 countries. At present, 11,000 of that number are from Britain. The United States plans to seek larger numbers to help, especially with relief supplies that are coming from another dozen countries. Administration officials said that in spite of the difficult security situation in Iraq, there was a consensus in the administration that it would be better to work with these countries than to involve the United Nations or countries that opposed the war and are now eager to exercise influence in a postwar Iraq. "The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, 'We really need to make Iraq an international operation,' " said an administration official. "You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but right now the situation in Iraq is not that dire." [end] (9) [begin] Though the administration has decided against seeking a separate resolution to give the United Nations any authority over security, some officials say that consideration might be given to getting wider United Nations authority over the multibillion-dollar reconstruction of Iraq. A meeting of potential donor countries has been scheduled for Oct. 24 in Madrid, and some of the big European countries that wanted a more significant United Nations role if they sent peacekeepers are also hinting that they wanted the United Nations to have more of a say over reconstruction if they have to put up huge sums of money for that effort. In Iraq this week, L. Paul Bremer III, the top American administrator in the occupation, said that over the next four years, the amount of money needed from outside for Iraq would be "staggering." Many experts say it could amount to tens of billions of dollars. The Bush administration has been reluctant to give the United Nations more than minimal authority in the reconstruction of Iraq. Many administration members say that France, Germany, Russia and other countries demanding such a role are actually doing so to try to get more contracts and economic benefits for themselves. The desire for more United Nations involvement by many countries echoes the debate that preceded the war. Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others were openly disdainful of getting United Nations authorization for the war, even after Mr. Bush had sided with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to pursue that route. Mr. Rumsfeld, according to administration officials, vehemently opposes any dilution of military authority over Iraq by involving the United Nations, either through United Nations peacekeepers or indirectly in any United Nations authorization of forces from other countries. American military officials say they fear that involving the United Nations, even indirectly, will hamper the latitude the United States must have in overseeing Iraqi security and pursuing anti-American guerrilla forces or terrorist actions. The Pentagon said today that besides the United States and Britain, the other countries that have already sent troops to Iraq are Albania, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine. The troops in Iraq serve under American and British command, and so would the troops of any other countries that took part. In addition, another dozen countries have been asked to help with forces to protect and carry out relief. They include Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Mongolia, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Portugal and Thailand. In all, a Pentagon official said, the United States hopes to round up 44 countries to participate in the occupation. [end] (10) [begin] Some administration officials said they would now rethink their strategy of spurning the United Nations and see if there could be some language worked out in a Security Council resolution as sought by India and the other countries. In effect, administration officials now say, such a resolution would be more trouble than it is worth. Soundings among members of the Security Council indicated that Russia, France and other countries might try for concessions favorable to them in the running of Iraq, and such demands would only deepen divisions between them and the United States. "The last thing we need is a loss of momentum over the efforts to get things under control in Iraq," said a Western diplomat involved in these discussions. "Besides, the violence in Iraq is not as bad as everyone thinks it is." Some experts say that sooner or later the United States may have to change its mind again, particularly if conditions in Iraq deteriorate drastically. United Nations officials involved in peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan and the Balkans say that the total number of troops in Iraq may have to double before the security situation comes under control. [end] (11) 1. Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 24 of Security Council resolution 1483 (2003), S/2003/715, 17 July 2003, para. 100-104, http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S/2003/715 2. Security Council resolution 1500, S/Res/1500, 14 August 2003 3. Steven R. Weisman with Felicity Barringer, "U.S. Abandons Idea of Bigger U.N. Role in Iraq Occupation", New York Times, 14 August 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/14/international/worldspecial/14DIPL.html 4. US Senate, amendment 1190, S.Amdt. 1190, to amendment 1136, S.Amdt. 1136, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00271 to US Senate, "Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2004", S.925, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s925pcs.txt.pdf 5. US Senate, amendment 1190, S.Amdt. 1190, to amendment 1136, S.Amdt. 1136, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00271 to US Senate, "Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2004", S.925, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s925pcs.txt.pdf 6. Steven R. Weisman with Felicity Barringer, "U.S. Abandons Idea of Bigger U.N. Role in Iraq Occupation", New York Times, 14 August 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/14/international/worldspecial/14DIPL.html 7. Edward Luce, Peter Spiegel, Stefan Wagstyl and Tom Warner, "US struggles to cobble together international troop force", Financial Times, 1 August 2003 8. Edward Luce, Peter Spiegel, Stefan Wagstyl and Tom Warner, "US struggles to cobble together international troop force", Financial Times, 1 August 2003 9. Steven R. Weisman with Felicity Barringer, "U.S. Abandons Idea of Bigger U.N. Role in Iraq Occupation", New York Times, 14 August 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/14/international/worldspecial/14DIPL.html 10. Steven R. Weisman with Felicity Barringer, "U.S. Abandons Idea of Bigger U.N. Role in Iraq Occupation", New York Times, 14 August 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/14/international/worldspecial/14DIPL.html 11. Steven R. Weisman with Felicity Barringer, "U.S. Abandons Idea of Bigger U.N. Role in Iraq Occupation", New York Times, 14 August 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/14/international/worldspecial/14DIPL.html Nathaniel Hurd Consultant on Iraq policy Tel. (Mobile): 917-407-3389 Fax: 718-504-4224 E-mail: nathaniel_hurd@hotmail.com 777 1st Avenue Suite 7A New York, NY 10017 _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk