by Thalif Deen
(IPS) UNITED NATIONS --
with a rising death toll among its soldiers in Iraq, the United States is trying to "buy" foreign troops for a proposed 30,000-strong multinational force in Baghdad, some observers say.
"When they were seeking UN support for a war on Iraq, they were twisting arms," one Asian diplomat told IPS. "Now they are offering carrots in exchange for our troops."
The inducements -- including weapons and increased military aid -- have apparently been offered to at least three countries whose troops Washington needs to bolster the fledgling multinational force in Iraq and relieve the pressure on U.S. forces in the war-ravaged country.
The administration of President George W. Bush has intensified efforts to seek troops from India, Pakistan and Turkey in order to beef up a force that now includes troops mostly from former Soviet allies and Latin America.
The Indian government, which withdrew its offer of 17,000 troops under heavy domestic political pressure, is being lobbied once again with an offer of sophisticated military equipment.
The quid pro quo, according to diplomatic sources, is approval of the proposed sale of the state-of-the-art Arrow 2 missile defense system made by Israel. Since the $100 million system includes U.S. components and was produced with U.S. funding, Israel needs Washington's approval to close the deal.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, is now in New Delhi to try to persuade the government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to change its stance on troops for Iraq.
The London 'Financial Times' said Tuesday that the Bush administration has also pledged to further relax the sale of dual-use technology to India in return for that countrys troops.
France, Germany, India, Pakistan and several other nations have declined to provide troops unless there is a new UN resolution authorising a peacekeeping force.
But India could change its position, according to Professor Stephen Cohen, director of the South Asia program at the Brookings Institution.
"For all we know, they are still talking about terms under which India might come," he said in an interview. "That's part of the bargaining game that's going on."
Since the war on Iraq began March 19, 244 U.S. soldiers have died -- 163 from hostile actions and 81 from accidents. Hundreds more have been wounded or injured. The rising death toll looms as a political liability for Bush who faces a re-election campaign next year.
The 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are backed by 12,000 from Britain.
Among the countries that have pledged troops for the new multinational force are Spain, Poland, Japan and Ukraine. Washington is also expecting smaller units from Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Honduras, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Mongolia, the Philippines and Nicaragua. It has logistical support from Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and South Korea.
The 'Washington Post' reported Tuesday that some of the countries were providing troops at U.S. taxpayers' expense.
The Bush administration has agreed to pay $240 million in support costs for the Polish contingent of about 9,000 troops. The costs will cover airlift transportation, meals, medical care and other expenses.
The proposed Indian contingent of 17,000 troops would have been the largest single foreign force, exceeding the 12,000 troops from Britain, Washington's coalition partner in the war.
But the move to provide Indian troops generated strong opposition, threatening a government that also faces elections next year.
India's neighbor and adversary Pakistan has been offered $3 billion dollars in U.S. aid over the next five years, of which $1.5 billion will be in military aid.
And according to the Ankara-based 'Hurriyet' newspaper, the United States has been lobbying the Turkish government for about 10,000 troops.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday the administration was discussing troop deployments by both Pakistan and Turkey.
"The Bush administration is doing the right thing in looking for additional help in Iraq, " says Natalie J. Goldring, executive director of the Program on Global Security and Disarmament at the University of Maryland.
"But the U.S. government should be seeking that help through the United Nations. Instead, U.S. political and military leaders are once again trying to buy countries' cooperation with weapons transfers and military aid," she told IPS.
Goldring added that there is no evidence that providing India with a missile defense system will decrease tensions in the unstable South Asian region.
"Quite the contrary. Past attempts by India or Pakistan to gain military advantage have inevitably been matched or countered by the other country, continuing and often accelerating the already dangerous arms race in that part of the world," she added.
At a press conference Wednesday, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that he believes the international community is seeking to "internationalize" the Iraqi operations under a UN umbrella.
"It is important for them -- not just for Europe or India, but also for the region. The Arab states would feel "more comfortable" providing troops under UN auspices, he added.
The United States has refused to seek approval for a UN peacekeeping force because it fears it may have to concede some of its military authority to the United Nations.
Wolfowitz told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Washington would agree to a UN resolution only if it did not curtail U.S. military authority.
July 31, 2003 (http://www.albionmonitor.net) All Rights Reserved. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for permission to use in any format.
All Rights Reserved.
Contact email@example.com for permission to use in any format.