Resolution on Iraq Aims to Win Troops, Money

The United States informally circulated a new draft resolution on Iraq to key Security Council members Wednesday that includes changes, among them an unofficial timetable for Iraqi self-rule, designed to win more troops and money for rebuilding the country.

Although Washington is unwilling to give up much control or change the basic framework of a political transition, it is offering the compromises as a way to address demands by France and other countries for a quick shift of sovereignty.

But diplomats say the essence of the U.S. approach remains the same, making them skeptical that the new draft will transform attitudes toward the U.S.-led occupation -- both in and outside Iraq -- and speed stabilization. Several countries, including France, had said they would have abstained if the previous U.S. draft had come to a vote, and the U.S. is working hard to win the support of all 15 council members.

The fastest way to change the environment, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said last week, is to end the occupation. “The longer they stay on as an occupation force, the greater the opposition will become,” Annan said in an interview published by the Sunday Times of London.

The new version of the U.S. proposal contains several concessions designed to convince Iraqis and potential donors that the occupation is temporary and that the country will be back in Iraqi hands sooner rather than later. It does not set out a specific schedule for a political transition, but instead asks the Iraqi Governing Council to come up with a timetable with guidance from the occupation authorities and the United Nations.

The Governing Council may be able to provide a timetable that “is believable and can strive for what we all want to achieve, but does not go into the Security Council resolution,” said a senior U.S. official. “It could serve as a gentlemen’s agreement. It would give others on the Security Council a sense of what we’re trying to do and when, but prevents us from being beaten over the head if the timetable doesn’t meet all its goals.”

Instead of bowing to requests by France and others for an immediate restoration of Iraqi sovereignty, the U.S. has stood by its sequence for a transfer of power: The drafting of a constitution, a referendum to ratify it and eventual elections. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Friday at the U.N. that he thought the elections could be held about a year after work started on the constitution. But he emphasized that the U.S. was not setting a deadline.

Representatives of the 24-member Governing Council differ on whether it’s possible to create a new government in a year. The most important factor is security, acting Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Wednesday at the Brookings Institution. In a best-case scenario, he said, it could be done. But he said he foresaw a process leading to sovereignty, not establishing sovereignty first.

“We need to accelerate the political process, but do it in a gradual way,” Zebari said. “We are looking into ways of convening a constitutional conference that gives Iraqis hope.”

Iraqis also need time to decide on the shape of their government, he said. “The two issues that are so critical to Iraqis now are what kind of federal system they will have and the role of Islam in society. And there are very deep differences over both.”

In response to Annan’s requests, the resolution attempts to more specifically define the role of the United Nations envoy and the mission in Iraq. It refers to the two sections of Annan’s July report on Iraq that outline the roles that the U.N. can best play, including guiding the political transition, organizing elections and continuing humanitarian work.

To persuade other countries that they could be helping Iraq, not just the United States, by sending troops, the resolution portrays a multinational force as the necessary backing for a smooth political process. Although the international force would be under U.S. command, it would report to the Security Council every six months.

After an internationally recognized government assumes full authority, the council would review the force’s mission to decide whether it should continue.

Although most council members agree that the U.S. should command a force, few are willing to send troops to a hostile area if they are seen as part of an occupation force.

“The only way to end opposition to the occupation is to end the occupation,” said a council diplomat. “And the Americans don’t want to do that.”

Changing that perception is one crucial area in which the resolution falls short, diplomats say. After the Aug. 19 bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad that killed more than 20 people, Annan pleaded with Security Council ambassadors for a new approach that would make it safe enough for the U.N. and others to help rebuild the country. That would require “a radical change” in the Iraqi perception of the international presence in Iraq, he said, from occupation to stressing rebuilding. The best way to do that, U.N. officials say, is to put authority in the hands of an Iraqi provisional government, preferably within three or four months.

“The problem of sovereignty is overblown,” said a senior U.N. official. “What matters is real authority, and it rests in the hands of the coalition authority and institutions. There can be a gradual transition to a technocratic government that runs the country day to day. The constitution should not be rushed because the debate is only starting in Iraq, and a constitution is a real pact with the people.”

President Bush and Powell held intense discussions with other world leaders last week at the United Nations. The U.S. tried to incorporate specific requests from those talks, officials said, and after sounding out the council on the new resolution, hopes to formally introduce it by the end of the week.

The real test will come Oct. 23-24 at a donors conference in Madrid. The U.S. will seek pledges totaling $35 billion to $40 billion for reconstruction over a four-year period starting in 2004, a State Department official said. About 75 countries and international organizations will attend, but so far contributions are expected from only three countries: Japan, Canada and Britain.

France, Russia, Germany and China have demanded that the U.S.-led administration account for U.N. money the occupation authorities already have spent and set up a monitoring board that was required under a recent resolution on Iraq.

Japanese officials say they will give a small grant and would like to make further loans, but are unsure to whom they should give the money until there is a recognized Iraqi government. Many other nations are holding back until there is a more stable international structure in place, leading U.S. officials to fear the coalition may not get the $10 billion it needs for the first cycle.

*

Farley reported from the United Nations and Wright from Washington.