April 8, 2003	Tuesday	Safar 5, 1424

WASHINGTON, April 7: The focus in Washington shifted to the formation of a new government in Iraq on Monday after US Central Command announced that coalition forces have captured key positions in Baghdad.

But this shifting of focus also has highlighted differences within the Bush administration and between the United States and its allies over Iraq’s future. Officials within the administration also disagree with each other over the UN role in the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq once US and British forces have toppled President Saddam Hussein.

While some in the Bush administration are reluctant to involve Iraqis in the initial stages, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned on Monday that “Iraq is not East Timor, it is not Kosovo.”

While urging the Bush administration to give a greater role to the Iraqis in running their own country, Annan told a US television channel: “Iraq has a fairly good civil service capable of running the country.”

The United Nations also has warned that the humanitarian conditions in Baghdad was rapidly deteriorating and hospitals were operating at full capacity due to high numbers of casualties among civilians. The warning, conveyed to Washington on Monday also spoke of humanitarian hardships in the cities of Najaf, Karbala and Nasiriyah, where water and medicine were in short supply.

“The situation in Baghdad is very dangerous and the UN is deeply worried due to the large number of civilian casualties,” the warning said. In Washington, Mr Annan’s statement and the warning are seen as part of a UN effort to seek a greater role in the post-Saddam Iraq. While the State Department supports granting this role to the world body, the so-called Iraq hawks in the administration are opposed to it.

The anti-UN lobby includes the Pentagon, pockets within the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney. The Pentagon and the State Department also disagree over the question of how long the coalition forces will remain in Iraq, where a growing number of people see them as an army of occupation.

The international community, which includes America’s closest war-ally, Britain, also favours ‘closely involving’ the United nations in the post-Saddam. Britain also wants the UN to “endorse any post-conflict administration in Iraq,” as Prime Minister Tony Blair recently said. Another US ally, Foreign Minister Franco Frattini of Italy also demanded: “a primary role for the United Nations, and not just in the humanitarian effort. Iraq must be put in the hands of the Iraqis as quickly as possible.”

Countries like France, Germany, and Russia — who opposed the war — also have demanded giving the United Nations a primary role and giving Iraq back to the Iraqis. But Washington is still sending confusing signals on both the issues. US Secretary of State Colin Powell says that Washington has begun “a process of dialogue” with the United Nations to agree on an “appropriate” role for the world body.

But President Bush’s National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice declared that a UN role was not currently under discussion. Rice said the countries that had shed blood in the conflict had earned the right to have the lead in determining Iraq’s future, causing concerns in the Arab diplomatic community in Washington.

Arabs interpret such statements as an indication that Iraq may be distributed between the United States and Britain as a war booty once the fighting is over. Washington plans for a post-Saddam Iraq, as explained by senior US officials, envision US and British forces remaining in Iraq to maintain security, with day-to-day affairs administered by the newly created US Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Aid.

The office was established by the Defence Department and is run by retired Army Gen. Jay Garner, who will report to Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the US-led war. Administration officials have said that the country will be divided into three “provinces” each with a US governor. One of the sticking points is that no one knows how long will troops remain in Iraq.

The next phase is to appoint an interim administration, which will be broad-based and include Iraqi exiles. The administration will have no executive powers, but will gradually take over responsibilities from Garner’s office. The third and final phase will be the election of some form of representative government. But, again, there is not even a tentative target date for Iraq’s emergence as a democratic nation.

The State Department, which was involved in drafting this plan, favours a UN-managed formula that mirrors the Afghanistan formula. Diplomatic sources in Washington say that Mr Powell was not opposed to the idea of holding an international conference — along the lines of the Afghan conference in Bonn, Germany, in December 2001 — for forming an interim government in Iraq.

The State Department, the sources say, was also not averse to the idea of seeking UN endorsement for a new political formula for democracy in Iraq. But the so-called hawks in the Bush administration are still simmering over the Security Council’s refusal to endorse the war, and diplomatic sources say President Bush will need a lot of persuading to seek Security Council approval of the reconstruction.

The sources say the administration continues to maintain its distance from countries that opposed the war. Last week, the State Department gave a top level briefing on the progress of the war, including its reconstruction plans, and on an advice from the White House invited only the ambassadors of the coalition of the willing — the nations that supported the war.

Washington sources say Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his senior civilian advisers have already indicated that they would block any move to involve the United Nations or the countries that opposed the war.