September 4, 2003	Thursday	Rajab 6, 1424

LONDON: US plans to ask the United Nations to mandate a US-led multinational force represent a policy reversal that shows how Iraq’s post-war torment has deflated the airy predictions of Bush administration hawks.

Until recently, Washington appeared to have ruled out any bid for a new Security Council resolution that would encourage hesitant countries to contribute troops or other aid to Iraq.

Spectacular bomb attacks, daily US casualties and mounting Iraqi anger at the failure of the occupying forces to restore basic services and security have prompted a rethink that could change the power balance within the US administration.

“It reflects a reality check for the neo-conservatives, who now feel exposed,” said Jonathan Stevenson, a security expert at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

“The post-conflict situation is proving much more fraught than the United States anticipated, but the Pentagon is still less inclined than the State Department to yield real authority to the United Nations. They are not ready to capitulate.”

The United States has so far shown its draft resolution only to its close ally Britain, but a US official has said it further defines the “vital role” of the United Nations.

Ellie Goldsworthy, a military expert at London’s Royal United Services Institute, said Washington wanted to appear willing to compromise, while keeping military control.

“There is no solution that anyone will leap at,” she said, but argued that even opponents of the US-led war recognized that Iraq could not be allowed to spin out of control.

Nevertheless those who had been against the invasion might exact a political price for coming to Washington’s aid now.

“It’s in everyone’s interest to see internationalization,” she said. “It spreads the emotional as well as the military burden and would alleviate the political pressure on (President George W.) Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair.”

Potential contributors such as India, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Arab nations have insisted on a strong UN mandate before they send troops to join the 150,000 American, 11,000 British and 10,000 other soldiers now in Iraq.

GOING IT ALONE: Before the March invasion, US hawks such as Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfovitz, made no secret of their low opinion of the United Nations and preference for unilateral US action.

Bush had said the world body would condemn itself to “irrelevance” unless it endorsed military action. It did not.

Dana Allin, a senior fellow for transatlantic relations at the IISS, said returning to the United Nations represented “a defeat for the idea that the US can do this more or less on its own, without seeking a compromise on the Security Council on defining the legitimacy of the US occupation of Iraq”.

Allin said keeping a multinational force under US command made sense and was unlikely to attract much contention.

“The more interesting and difficult question is what kind of political role the United Nations will have,” he said.

“I can’t see why the United States would want to have sole or overwhelming political control. The United Nations has flaws, it has made mistakes, but it also has a lot of experience.”

A report last month by the respected Brussels-based International Crisis Group proposed a new division of labour between the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the United Nations and the interim Iraqi Governing Council.

It said the CPA should keep control of military security, law and order, and restoring basic infrastructure.

The United Nations would oversee the Governing Council and the constitutional process, organise elections and coordinate humanitarian aid, among other responsibilities.

The council would take on day-to-day governance of Iraq, including a role in reconstituting the police and armed forces.

The report said such a rebalancing could help resolve the problem of who governs Iraq during the occupation, but said only a greater UN role could provide legitimacy for the transition.

Gareth Stansfield, an Iraq expert at Britain’s Exeter University, said the Bush administration, with a presidential election year looming, was very concerned to secure peace in Iraq, now that prewar optimism had proved illusionary.

“The neo-conservatives had certainly followed the belief that Iraq would fall easily, the Americans would be welcomed as liberators and Iraq would become a democracy,” he said.

“The Americans are now trying to identify the least worst solution,” Stansfield said. “They are looking for an exit strategy by internationalizing the situation.”—Reuters