Bush Flops at the UN-New Resolution a Failure
In an utter rejection of George Bush by the world community, the Administration is apparently throwing in the towel already on getting a Security Council resolution in support of the American occupation aimed at getting multilateral assistance. Bush’s speech at the UN several weeks ago was so poorly received that administration officials are now conceding the unlikelihood of any additional assistance from other countries and are ready to tell American taxpayers that we’ll have to bear the burdens ourselves.
The Bush administration has run into such stiff opposition at the United Nations Security Council to its plan for the future government of Iraq that it has pulled back from seeking a quick vote endorsing the proposal and may shelve it altogether, administration officials said Tuesday.
Originally, the administration said United Nations approval of American plans for the next phase of postwar Iraq would encourage other countries to contribute money or troops. Now the tone has shifted to one of living without such help, if necessary.
The new pessimism about winning United Nations support results from the cool reception accorded to the administration's most recent draft on Iraqi self-government, which was supposedly redrawn to take into account suggestions of Security Council members.
Just two weeks ago, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell expressed confidence in a meeting at The New York Times that the United States had the votes to pass a resolution reflecting its approach. Mr. Powell said the Governing Council would be given a deadline of six months to write a constitution. But within days of that comment, Iraqi leaders said the deadline was unrealistic.
At the United Nations, the combination of Council members' comments on Monday and the remarks of John D. Negroponte, the American envoy, on Tuesday made it clear that a week of efforts had failed to narrow the differences between the American approach and that of other countries, including France, Russia and China, all veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council.
Russia, some officials said, was turning out this week to be not as helpful in supporting the American position as it had earlier seemed. (So much for looking into Pooty Poot's soul, huh W?)
American officials say that if the United States decides against getting endorsement for its approach in Iraq, it is not clear what aid it would be able to get from donor countries around the world, or from those countries being asked to send troops to Iraq.
Turkey is willing to send troops in without United Nations endorsement, administration officials said. But Pakistan, South Korea and others may not do so. India, an American official said, appeared unwilling to send troops even if the United Nations endorsed the transition.
One of the sticking points with the UN is the desire to hand over more control to the US-picked Iraqi Governing Council, which Bush rejects. Yet one of the reasons why the administration rejects transferring more control over to the council and thereby getting more international support at this time is the reality that the guys we installed at Ahmad Chalabi’s suggestion are loathed by their countrymen.
(M)any American officials say that if the United States tried to set up the existing Iraqi Governing Council — handpicked by the American-led occupation authority last summer — the attacks on American forces and Iraqi targets would only intensify. "The Governing Council is not seen as legitimate by the Iraqi people," said the administration official. "They're not ready to take power."
Among other things, various officials say, the Governing Council is dominated by former exile groups installed by the occupation but widely disliked by many Iraqis.
I’m sure the American taxpayer will be thrilled at this turn of events.