U.S. to Pinpoint Elections in Exchange for Military Force

U.S. to Pinpoint Elections in Exchange for Military Force
Thalif Deen - IPS 9/4/03

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 3 (IPS) - The United States is trying to win support for a multinational peacekeeping force in Iraq by pledging a timetable for elections and the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people currently under a U.S.-led military occupation.

After speaking to key members of the U.N. Security Council -- including France, Russia and Germany -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters Wednesday that a proposed resolution will not only call for a new multinational force but also provide a specific time frame for elections in Iraq.

Washington is asking the international community to join the U.N.-authorised force in order to restore peace and stability in Iraq, added Powell.

But some U.N. diplomats predicted there will be hard political bargaining behind closed doors before any resolution emerges.

''The pledge to hold elections and restore sovereignty is obviously aimed at winning the confidence of the Security Council. But whether it will succeed remains to be seen,'' an Arab diplomat told IPS.

The 119-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the largest single Third World political body at the United Nations, has not taken a stand on a new multinational force primarily because 22 Arab states that belong to NAM are abiding by a decision taken by the League of Arab States on the aftermath of the war on Iraq.

The League has refused to recognise both the legitimacy of the Iraqi Governing Council -- whose 25 members have been described as ''puppets'' of the United States -- and the military occupation of Iraq.

In an interview with the Paris-based 'Le Monde' newspaper last week, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin argued for transferring political power from the U.S.-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to a ''real'' Iraqi provisional government.

As a trade-off for a multinational force, France is also expected to call for a multinational military command structure for the new force.

If the United States refuses those demands, the two countries might be heading on a collision course in the Security Council: a replay of an earlier dispute between the two veto-wielding members.

The United States was forced to go to war with Iraq without U.N. authorisation because France threatened to exercise its veto.

Washington has already indicated it wants the new resolution adopted before U.S. President George W. Bush visits the United Nations to address the General Assembly on Sep. 23.

''But that seems far too optimistic,'' the Arab diplomat told IPS.

''A working text of the draft resolution is emerging,'' according to British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, who holds the current rotating presidency of the Security Council.

''But I don't know what the extent of Security Council involvement would be until the resolution is adopted,'' Parry told reporters Wednesday.

''We are envisaging a multinational force authorised by the Security Council under chapter seven (of the U.N. charter).''

That provision empowers the Council to act on its own volition in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The body has authorised several such peacekeeping forces in many of the world's trouble spots, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cote d'Ivoire.

Parry said the draft resolution envisages ''a line of communication to the Security Council'', so that members can monitor and check how the (military) presence is actually acting on the ground (in Iraq)''.

The proposed force would comprise existing foreign troops in Iraq and others who may wish to join the new body, he added. ''We will have a multinational force authorised by the Security Council operating under a unified command.''

But Washington says that unified command would be a U.S. command, not a U.N. one.

The United States says it has commitments from 30 nations to provide 22,000 troops for the multinational force. These will be incorporated into the U.N. authorised force, if it is approved by the Security Council.

Powell said last week that five additional countries were in the process of providing soldiers, while the United States was also expecting troops from 14 others. He did not identify the countries.

The new U.S. resolution is also expected to convince some of the reluctant member states -- including, Russia, India, Pakistan and Turkey -- to provide troops.

In an op-ed piece in the 'Washington Post' on Monday, Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment said the Bush administration's search for a U.N. resolution isn't aimed at getting European forces but at bringing in the larger forces available from Turkey, India and Pakistan.

''Never mind whether Turkish and Indian troops in Iraq are really the answer to all our problems in Iraq -- or would instead become part of the problem themselves. The fact is that we may never get them,'' he wrote.

Kagan said the Turkish public remains hostile to any deployment while the Indian government is reluctant to take part without a U.N. resolution.

''And the French have little interest in passing a U.N. resolution solely to help the Americans get the Turkish and Indian troops to relieve the American burden in Iraq.''