Bush Likely To Get UN Resolution, But No Troops Or Money

by Thalif Deen

With France announcing it will not veto Washington's proposed UN resolution for the force, the administration of President George W. Bush is trying to muster foreign troops it desperately needs to stabilize a war-devastated Iraq that may be on the brink of political and military chaos.

"But what good is the resolution," asks an Asian diplomat, "if the United States fails to get what it wants -- troops and funds for the reconstruction of Iraq?"

The proposed resolution, which is expected to go before the Security Council in early October, seeks not only troops from U.S. allies around the world but also billions of dollars in aid for the reconstruction of Iraq.

The United States is expected to receive the nine votes it needs to see the resolution pass in the 15-member Security Council, with no vetoes expected from any of the four other permanent members: France, Britain, China and Russia.

Bush has been meeting with several heads of state -- including French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee -- who are in New York for the annual General Assembly sessions.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is doing his rounds too, meeting visiting foreign ministers, including those from Nicaragua, Turkey, South Korea and Nepal.

The proposed UN-mandated force of 30,000-40,000 soldiers would help relieve pressure on the besieged 140,000-strong U.S. military force in Iraq, whose troops are dying from guerrilla-style attacks at an average of about one per day.

Immediately after his meeting with Bush on Wednesday, Musharraf told reporters that he needs to see the "final shape" of the U.S. resolution before he decides to respond to Washington's request for 10,000-12,000 Pakistani troops.

"We have international obligations and we have domestic constraints," he said. "President Bush absolutely understands this."

"The domestic environment in Pakistan is totally opposed to sending troops to Iraq," added Musharraf.

Opposition, according to political sources in Pakistan, is coming from Islamic fundamentalists, who seek solidarity with the Iraqis in their fight against the U.S.-led occupation.

Musharraf said that his decision on sending troops will depend primarily on two factors: whether the resolution will also call on Muslim nations to send troops to Iraq and whether the Iraq people want a multinational force.

"We cannot be seen as being an extension of the military occupation of Iraq," Musharraf added.

The Bush administration has already pledged about three billion dollars in new economic and military aid to Pakistan over the next five years. But the disbursement of funds is dependent on how Pakistan cooperates with the United States in its global 'war on terrorism'.

The provision of troops to the proposed UN force might be an added condition, observers speculate.

Last week, Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts raised a political storm in Washington when he accused the Bush administration of failing to account for nearly one-half of the $3.9 billion Washington has said it is spending on the military in Iraq every month.

"My belief is that this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops," he said.

The "imminent threat" to the United States from Iraq, Kennedy added, was "made up in Texas , announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."

The Bush administration, which is also negotiating for about 10,000-20,000 troops from Turkey, announced last week that it plans to provide a $8.5-billion loan to Ankara.

According to the London 'Financial Times', the United States "insisted that it was not trying to buy Turkish soldiers to help out in Iraq."

A new opinion poll in Turkey has found strong domestic opposition to troop deployment to Iraq. Just before the U.S. attack on Iraq last March, the Turkish parliament rejected both a U.S. request for troops and a hefty $15-billion U.S. aid package offered to Ankara.

"It certainly would be nothing new for the United States to use bribes to get its way at the United Nations," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute of Policy Studies, told IPS.

"There is a long and sordid history of such things, including the 1990-1991 Gulf crisis, when the United States bribed China [with post-Tiananmen Square diplomatic rehabilitation and resumption of long-term development aid] to avert a potential veto of Washington's go-to-war vote" in the Security Council, she added.

"The poor countries on the Council at that time -- Zaire, Colombia, Ethiopia -- were bribed with cheap oil guaranteed by the exiled Kuwaiti royals, and new military aid packages from the United States," according to Bennis.

"What is new would be spending billions of dollars for votes on a resolution which probably won't actually result in getting international troops or money to back the United States in Iraq, anyway," she added.

Both Germany and France have ruled out any troops for the proposed new force. Instead, they are insisting on the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty and a greater political role for the United Nations in Iraq.

India has said its military is pre-occupied with "cross-border terrorism" on the Pakistan border and is no position to provide the 18,000 troops requested by the United States.

Naseer Aruri, chancellor and professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, told IPS that even if the United States gets the nine needed votes in the Security Council, "that would not necessarily guarantee that the Bush administration will succeed in legitimizing and internationalizing its occupation of Iraq, and continuing to impose its will on the international community."

He said that many factors could render Bush's "victory" superfluous, including continuing terror attacks on UN facilities, which seem to send a message that the United Nations is viewed as a puppet and an enforcer for Washington.

Another factor is the new reality emerging from the debate of Bush's foreign policy inside the United States. "And it is coming from unlikely sources -- the foreign policy establishment, mainstream media, and congressional circles, such as Kennedy's description of U.S. policy as 'fraud', Aruri added.