Stewart Stogel
Wednesday, October 8, 2003

The decision follows a White House announcement earlier in the week that gave national security advisor Condoleezza Rice primary authority over Iraq and its reconstruction. That responsibility had been the Pentagon's.

Last week, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan publicly complained that the U.S. "proposal" on Iraq did not go far enough. The primary concern was that the U.S. did not offer specifics on when governing authority would be turned over to Iraqis. The 25-member Iraqi Governing Council (appointed by Washington) has limited authority and is primarily concerned with drafting a new constitution for the war torn Gulf state.

When attending the U.N. General Assembly in New York City last month, Rice told reporters that U.S. taxpayers did not pay $20 bil. to free Iraq and then turn it over to a group of "appointed individuals," (as suggested by French President Jacques Chirac).

The fact that the presidential adviser helped appoint those same Iraqi officials seemed to had been forgotten.

Turkey, in a reversal of an earlier action, has decided "in principal" to commit troops to the Coalition's effort in Iraq.

Published reports claim that Ankara's decision could pave the way for as many as 10,000 soldiers to be sent to Iraq. If acted on, Turkey would have the third largest force in the country, surpassed by only the U.S. and UK.

The latest Turkish move, the Annan remarks, plus a less than "enthusiastic" reception in the Security Council, were among the main factors prompting Washington's decision to drop negotiations.

"We never committed to seeking a Council resolution, it was only an option," explained a senior U.S. diplomat.

The official, who requested confidentiality, explained that the White House was "making progress" in getting several countries to join the Coalition's efforts "independent of the U.N." and that several key Council members were only giving "lip service" to the U.S. proposal.

The official stressed that "all options" are still available to the U.S., but made it clear that Washington was of no mind set to get bogged down in a new round of U.N. negotiations that would go nowhere.

While not mentioning France, Germany and Russia by name, the U.S. diplomat made it clear that despite public pronouncements of cooperation with the U.S., the three Council members were doing nothing to assist the U.S. in drafting a new resolution.

In short, diplomats at the United Nations believe that as the U.S. moves further into the presidential campaign season, the White House will have less stomach to get involved in protracted negotiations which end in a stalemate.

The U.S. decision to suspend the Council effort is also a public rebuke of Annan who had "rejected" the U.S. proposal. The U.N. chief, who has no vote in the Council, took the unusual step of calling Washington's offer "unacceptable."

Now, there is no offer and the U.N. is pushed even further to the sidelines. The Secretary-General has seen his relations with Washington slip markedly in recent weeks.

Annan slammed the Bush administration's policy of "preemptive" strikes to combat terrorism during his address opening the 2003 General Assembly. He then followed it up with the public rejection of the Security Council draft proposal.

The White House has refused direct comment on the Annan actions.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright once told this reporter that a U.N. Secretary-General "should be seen and not heard."

"If we don't ask for his comments, there is a reason for it," she said.

Though Albright was referring to U.N. chief Bourtos Bourtos-Ghali, many diplomats feel that Annan may suffer the same fate of being pushed aside by Washington if his criticisms continue.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
United Nations
Editor's note:
Is the UN Dead? Find out the truth - Click Here Now!