Bush Gets Chilly Reception From UN, World Leaders

by Thalif Deen

The politically cautious Annan, who is known for his diplomatic niceties, broke traditional norms when he castigated the United States for its "pre-emptive strike" on Iraq last March.

Rather than wait for an expected armed attack with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), he told delegates, "some states say they have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other states, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed."

The aggressor States say they are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council, added Annan. "Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions," he said, clearly referring to the U.S.-led military coalition that invaded Iraq.

"This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfect, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years," since the creation of the United Nations, added Annan.

His strong case for the primacy of the United Nations was vigorously backed by French President Jacques Chirac, who called for the transfer of sovereignty from the United States to the Iraqis under UN auspices.

"It is up to the United Nations to give legitimacy to this process," Chirac told the opening session of the Assembly.

"It is also up to the United Nations to assist with the gradual transfer of administrative and economic responsibilities to the present Iraqi institutions according to a realistic timetable, and to help the Iraqis draft a constitution and hold elections," he added.

The 15-member Security Council, Chirac pointed out, has a key role to play in setting the bounds for using force. "No one is entitled to arrogate to himself the right to utilize it unilaterally and preventively," he added.

Bush, who addressed the Assembly earlier in the day, was not in the cavernous UN chamber when Chirac directed his attack on the widely held U.S. belief in unilateral force.

Having gone to war after rebuffing the United Nations, Bush returned to the world body appealing for troops for a proposed new peacekeeping force and funds to rebuild the war-devastated nation.

The U.S. leader told a mostly skeptical audience -- in an Assembly that gave a standing ovation to his predecessor Bill Clinton about four years ago -- that, in Iraq, the United States was making the greatest financial commitment of its kind since the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after the Second World War.

Washington is working with friends and allies on a new Security Council resolution, which will expand the UN's role in Iraq, he added.

"As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, in training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections," Bush argued.

In an appeal to UN member states for money for reconstruction and troops for a new multinational peacekeeping force, Bush said, "yet, every young democracy needs the help of friends. Now the nation of Iraq needs and deserves our aid, and all nations of goodwill should step forward and provide that support."

But he does not likely to get much of either -- as countries such as France, Germany, India and Pakistan are either reluctant to jump in because of domestic political constraints or remain unconvinced that they should risk their troops in a country where U.S. soldiers are being killed at an average of one per day.

Washington is expected to seek about 30,000 troops in the new resolution, mostly from countries such as France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Turkey and South Korea.

France, which has said it will not veto the resolution calling for a new force, has already announced it has no plans to join the peacekeeping force. Germany, another member of the UN Security Council, has offered to help rebuild Iraq but not to provide troops.

The United States was expecting the largest single contingent -- about 18,000 troops -- from India. But its leaders have expressed doubts that they will respond positively to the U.S. request.

A senior Indian official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the New York-based 'India Abroad' newspaper last week that his government is not likely to send troops, even if Washington succeeds in getting a UN mandate for the peacekeeping force.

He said most Indian troops are deployed in the fight against cross-border terrorism with neighboring Pakistan. "Just as the Americans have their compulsions vis-ˆ-vis Pakistan, we too have problems with Pakistan, which need to be resolved before we can consider sending troops for peacekeeping missions abroad," added the official.

In an interview with the 'New York Times' Monday, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said it would be for Pakistan to send troops if the plan is endorsed by Muslim nations belonging to the 54-nation Organization of Islamic Conference, and also the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council.

But both institutions have yet to give their political blessings for the proposed peacekeeping force.

Margaret Karns, a professor of political science at the University of Dayton, told IPS that the key to the successful adoption of a UN resolution will depend on the precise language of that proposal.

"The United States made a huge mistake in not having better post-war planning. If we felt it necessary to go to war with Iraq, we should have turned immediately to the United Nations to conduct the post-war task," said Karns, co-author of 'The United Nations in the Post-Cold War Era'.

"That is why we created the United Nations and other international organizations in the first place -- to share responsibilities and burdens," she added.