UNITED NATIONS–Buoyed by congressional approval of an attack on Iraq, the Bush administration attempted Friday 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, facing 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 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, would 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 Friday, 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 it as an embrace of war. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, 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 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 Thursday night at United Nations missions in New York. Diplomats said the revised American draft still contains requirements for inspections that other Security Council members have rejected.
The administration’s hard line was rebuked by 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 United Nations 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 Friday. 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 hasn’t 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 Friday, saying the U.S. military would likely have an extended presence in Iraq. That is a shift from earlier emphasis by the administration that Iraqi dissidents and opposition leaders would play the leading role after any war.
“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 Saddam is toppled, much will depend on the situation in Iraq and status of the Iraqi opposition. One model gathering momentum, officials said, would be a three-phase process that begins with a U.S. military operation, moves to a civilian occupation and then 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 government was ousted. In the Afghan case, U.S.-led troops have played a limited role in the country’s security, while 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 Friday.
