Bush Bids to End Impasse at U.N., Outlines Iraq Plan
URL: washingtonpost.com
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 12, 2002; Page A01
Buoyed by congressional approval of an attack on Iraq, the Bush administration attempted yesterday to break an impasse over a toughened weapons inspections regime at the U.N. Security Council and began to talk publicly about American plans for Iraq -- including the possibility of U.S. military rule -- should President Saddam Hussein be overthrown.
In negotiations at the United Nations, the administration, faced with continued opposition from France and Russia, offered to drop its demand that any Security Council resolution specifically authorize military force if Iraq does not disarm. A compromise resolution would instead threaten unspecified "consequences" for Iraq if its defiance continues -- language that the administration believes would give it sufficient authority to attack Iraq.
The administration is calculating that the language concession, combined with the lopsided votes in the House and Senate authorizing a strike on Iraq, will increase pressure on the Security Council to adopt a new resolution governing renewed U.N. inspections of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. The Senate, by a 77-23 vote early yesterday, approved the use of force, following a similar House vote Thursday afternoon.
The White House hailed the votes as an "outstanding and overwhelming bipartisan show of support." But lawmakers in both parties cautioned against reading them as an embrace of war. Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said the "overwhelming consensus" of lawmakers is "that we have to be very careful about the employment of military personnel and weaponry; that while that may be necessary, we're not there yet."
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said, "The United States must lead the diplomatic high ground and use a multilateral approach to disarmament with the support of friends and allies."
Though U.S. negotiators were optimistic a compromise could be reached at the Security Council, there was no immediate sign of progress. Russia's deputy foreign minister, Yury Fedotov, said the administration's original proposal -- automatically authorizing force if Iraq does not comply -- "can't be accepted," according to Russia's Interfax news agency. Russian President Vladimir Putin, after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said he would not "exclude the possibility" of agreeing on a new resolution, but he continued to emphasize a return of weapons inspectors.
The initial French response, conveyed to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, was said to be discouraging. Powell relayed the new language proposal in a phone conversation with French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, and it was also floated at United Nations missions in New York on Thursday night. Diplomats said the revised U.S. draft still contains requirements for inspections that other Security Council members have rejected.
The administration's hard line received a rebuke from the chairman of the Nobel Committee, who, in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to former president Jimmy Carter, said the award "can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq." Carter used the occasion to say he would have opposed the congressional resolution authorizing force.
President Bush avoided a public celebration of the congressional votes giving him authority to wage war if efforts at the U.N. prove fruitless. The White House issued a written statement after the 1 a.m. Senate vote, and Bush did not mention the vote in public yesterday. But in a sign of its growing confidence, the administration began to talk openly about its plans for Iraq should Hussein be removed -- an answer to critics who argued that Bush has not devoted enough thought to the daunting task of rebuilding Iraq.
A senior official told reporters Thursday that the administration was contemplating an ambitious military occupation. Powell echoed that view yesterday, saying the U.S. military would likely have an extended presence in Iraq.
"Should it come to that, we would have an obligation really to put in place a better regime, and we are obviously doing contingency planning," Powell said in an interview with National Public Radio. "And there are lots of different models from history that one could look at -- Japan, Germany -- but I wouldn't say that anything has been settled upon."
But White House press secretary Ari Fleischer objected to characterizations that the administration was considering a military occupation. Speaking of the model used by the United States in post-World War II Japan, he said: "That's not what's envisaged."
Fleischer said the administration is "looking at the possibility of U.S. civil affairs units of the military having an involvement in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq." He said the administration planned "to work with our international coalition, to work through the U.N., to work through our military, to make certain that there is stability in the region."
While U.S. military control of Iraq is considered likely if Hussein is toppled, much will depend on the situation in Iraq and status of the Iraqi opposition. One model gathering momentum, officials said, is a three-phase process that would begin with a U.S. military operation, move to a civilian occupation and shift to Iraqi control after local and national elections.
Rule by U.S. military authorities would be a significant departure from the situation in Afghanistan after the Taliban was ousted. In the Afghan case, U.S.-led troops have played a limited role in the country's security, and civilian responsibilities were turned over to an Afghan government almost immediately. "We're working on the basic theory that if there's military action, there's going to have to be a military boss for some time," a senior U.S. official said yesterday.
Though not mentioning Iraq, the president yesterday spoke of Afghanistan as a model for American action. "As we stay in Afghanistan, it will be important for other brave people, whether they live in Muslim countries or in the Middle East, people who stand for tolerance and the rule of law and equal rights and freedom of expression, to see our commitment to freedom," said Bush, speaking at a White House event celebrating U.S. support for Afghanistan.
A fact sheet distributed by the White House noted that the United States has spent $588 million in the past year for humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Afghanistan, and the fact sheet noted that Congress is considering $1.45 billion more over four years. "Working together, America's private and public sectors have staved off starvation, immunized children, built schools, restarted agriculture, and improved health care in Afghanistan over the past year," the fact sheet said.
International aid organizations have been critical of the administration's commitments to rebuilding Afghanistan. Though the government has exceeded an aid pledge of $297 million it made in January, the aid officials say that has been used almost entirely for emergency services such as food, rather than for rebuilding.
"I'd like to see some real presidential leadership on that issue and explicit backing," said Peter Bell, president of the relief organization Care. "In many respects, the reconstruction is just barely getting underway. I'm not sure the Afghans or the Americans yet have a fully put-together strategy."
Bell said the administration did not spend millions of dollars Congress authorized to be spent on Afghanistan in the 2002 fiscal year, and he said Bush made no request for Afghan reconstruction funds in his budget for the fiscal year that has just begun.
Staff writers Karen DeYoung, Colum Lynch and Peter Slevin contributed to this report.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company |
