This year, judging by the press coverage, you might think we’re headed for one of two versions of fall at the U.N.. Either the Bush administration has just reversed its go-it-alone policy and the world is about to give itself one giant group hug in Iraq. Or the rest of the world (led by those ever-untrustworthy French and Germans) are going to slash and burn the latest olive branch from President Bush.
In fact, there is a third scenario that is far more likely–and far closer to what happened in New York last year. Amid all the fanfare about Bush’s challenge to the U.N. last September, and the anti-Saddam resolution that followed, one thing is now clear: nothing much changed. The United States invaded Iraq with just the British on board, and most of the rest of the world turned away. In reality, all sides got the outcome they wanted. The Americans and Brits won some diplomatic cover for the war they thought was inevitable. The rest declared their opposition to a war they were never going to join.
So what will happen now that President Bush is going back to the U.N. for more troops and even more money for Iraq? Nothing much that will change the facts on the ground. Washington and its closest allies are not banking on vast numbers of extra troops or extra cash, although both would be welcome. What they want is, once again, more diplomatic cover for the occupation. And the rest of the world may well oblige, as long as they can again declare their opposition to the whole thing.
Fall at the U.N. is about style, not substance. But don’t take my word for it: listen to the principal players. When Secretary of State Colin Powell first floated the notion of a new U.N. resolution, in the wake of last month’s dreadful bomb attack on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, he was crystal clear. He had no time or energy to engage in intellectual debates about who should control Iraq’s politics. That again was his message at the weekend, just before Bush’s Sunday speech to the nation. “Look, there is enough work here for everyone, but the lead role has to be played by the United States,” Powell told NBC’s Meet The Press. “We are the ones who are there now. We are the ones who took over the country. We have governing responsibility. And we believe that there is no need for a contest over these.”
Powell also explained how he was expecting not much more than 10,000 troops to come from the rest of the world–less than 10 per cent of the U.S. forces in Iraq right now. But more than that, he wanted a display of global harmony. “What we are really interested in in this resolution, though, is to get the international community to come together and participate in the political reconstruction of Iraq,” he said.
For a real display of global harmony, you might actually expect far larger numbers of foreign troops and much more money from allies. But in exchange, you might have to give far more in terms of real power to the U.N., as the French and Germans have demanded. In any case, it’s not clear that the rest of the world is ready to step up to the plate–even if Iraq was dumped in the U.N.’s lap.
Just look at the response of America’s closest allies, Britain and Spain. Tony Blair’s government just announced that an additional 1,200 troops would be heading for Iraq, bringing the number of U.K. forces to around 12,000. That is a mere one quarter of their wartime peak–and all this from a country where a majority still support the war, in spite of the political scandal surrounding the pre-war hype.
Spain, another steadfast ally, has just 1,200 troops in Iraq and is planning no increase. Ana Palacio, the Spanish foreign minister, told NEWSWEEK that the troop numbers reflected Spain’s size, its economy, and the nature of its armed forces. “We are contributing what we think is reasonable,” she said, suggesting it was far more important to win the symbolic help in Iraq of countries from the region.
Spain is also readying for a donors’ conference in Madrid next month to raise cash to rebuild Iraq. Yet that too appears more symbolic than substantive, given the size of the task in Iraq and what Paul “Jerry” Bremer, the chief U.S. civilian administrator in Baghdad, calls the “staggering” amounts of cash required. The definition of staggering just got even more breathtaking, with the president’s request for $87 billion from Congress, including $20.3 billion for reconstruction.
That leaves another staggering task for the Madrid donors to come close to matching this year’s additional figures from the White House. “It’s a huge amount, which takes you aback when you see this,” Palacio says of Bush’s figures. While Palacio declines to say how much Madrid might raise, she adds: “I think that right now the first goal is to have the involvement of the international community, to have it assume that Iraq is a concern for all of us.”
So not even America’s closest allies are expecting vast sums of money or troops–at least not vast enough to make a significant impact in Iraq. Far from a huge policy reversal, the Bush administration is engaging in subtle tweaks of its presentation, and the rest of the world is only too ready to return the favor. So don’t expect much of a group hug this fall at the U.N. The world is only ready for an air kiss.
