Go to contents

U.S. Partial Victory of U.N. Resolution

Posted October. 17, 2003 22:45,   


The international community acknowledged, albeit belatedly, the just cause of the war in Iraq as the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted the U.S.-sponsored resolution. However, it is uncertain whether the diplomatic victory can lead to substantial support in the forms of troop dispatch and financial aid.

The U.S. government partially changed the resolution to expand the role of U.N. Security-General Kofi Annan at the last moment, but the resolution reflects the U.S.’ national interest. The resolution authorized the sole right of the U.S. to intervene in Iraq’s political affairs and to have an American-led multinational force in Iraq.

Many members of the U.N. Security Council are still discontent even after they voted for the resolution for the unity of the Council. They pointed out that the U.N. is still under the control of the U.S., and it is unclear when to restore Iraqi sovereignty.

As soon as the United Nations resolution passed, several members — including U.N. ambassadors of China, Pakistan and Syria, as well as France, Germany and Russia — made clear that it was only the beginning of the reconstruction process in Iraq.

Right after the passage of the resolution, several nations such as France, Germany and Russia made clear that they are not considering sending any contributions of troops or money. Such moves are interpreted as an effort to win a U.S. concession in future negotiations with the United States. People in France and Germany are opposed to sending troops to Iraq saying that the dispatch has no right cause and is dangerous.

Pakistan, one of the countries that Washington had hoped would contribute troops, also ruled out sending troops to Iraq. Pakistan`s Ambassador to the U.N. Munir Akram complained that the resolution failed to clarify that the multinational troops were “a separate and distinct identity from the (U.S.) occupation forces.” The ambassador said, “Pakistan will not be able to contribute troops for the multinational force in Iraq.”

Japan, which is expecting a summit meeting with the U.S., responded positively. Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said, “Japanese Self-Defense Forces may cooperate with multinational troops in missions other than policing the security.”

Reflecting the international environment, reactions in the U.S. is rather negative. U.S. Secretary State Collin Powell avoided conclusive remarks saying, “I would not want to put a particular number on how many troops might or might not be contributed at this time.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said, “Which countries and how many troops it might affect, I think, remains to be seen.”

The Washington Post said that the passage of the resolution was not enough to ease the deep-rooted dissatisfaction of the international community. The New York Times said that President George W. Bush now had the task of the rapid restoration of Iraqi sovereignty so that the anti-war nations can be satisfied.

The United States, now receiving acknowledgment of the justification of the war, will strengthen its call for troop dispatch to 14 nations including Korea. President Bush will reportedly raise an issue of sending troops during his visit to six nations in the Asia-Pacific region, and the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting. Secretary State Powell will also call for aid during the APEC ministerial meeting.

The U.S. will also ask for assistance during an international donors meeting for Iraq in Madrid, Spain scheduled for October 23 and 24.

maypole@donga.com ecopark@donga.com