Why the US needs the UN in Iraq

by Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent

The sudden American readiness to consider a multinational force in Iraq under UN leadership is a proposal born out of need, not desire.

Despite a claim by chief US administrator Paul Bremer that Iraq is "not a country in chaos and Baghdad is not a city in chaos", there is deep concern in Washington about the prospect of the US getting bogged down there.

US troops seek reinforcement

The presidential election next year is a powerful incentive for the Bush team to consider any proposal that prevents Iraq from becoming a determining campaign issue.

Congress is already kicking up a fuss about being left in the dark about the ultimate costs of the occupation.

Public opinion is restive. Howard Dean is making strides as a Democratic presidential candidate on this issue.

The idea of bringing the UN in has been publicly floated by the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

He is very close to the Secretary of State Colin Powell himself, and clearly would not have spoken without his chief's say-so.

Under US command

Mr Armitage stressed that the multinational force would have to be under American leadership. He had to.

There would be no chance of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agreeing to it otherwise, and there is not a huge chance of it in any case.

The measures to be taken cannot simply be an increase or an adjustment of the current occupation forces French Foreign Minister de Villepin

The concept is to set up a multinational force with an American general at the top carrying a dual responsibility.

He would command the whole force under a UN mandate but would also have direct control of US forces.

The force itself would bring in troops from countries like Turkey, India, and Pakistan - which have been unwilling to send them without UN approval.

The UN would also be brought in much more on the political and civil side.

The arrangement was foreshadowed last week by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Speaking after the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad he said that "we have no interest in recommending UN blue helmets" but he did talk about "a multinational force that oversees the security arrangements with the UN focusing on the economic, political and social side".

Too late?

France in particular is insisting on a major role for the UN which goes beyond the limited one offered in Security Council resolution 1483, under which the UN is subsidiary to the occupying powers.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who led the opposition to the war in the Security Council, said of this latest idea:

"The measures to be taken cannot simply be an increase or an adjustment of the current occupation forces. It involves putting in place a real international force under a mandate from the UN Security Council."

Britain, as chairman of the Security Council during September is "keeping an open mind " according to officials, though they added that they would not envisage the UN "substituting for the Coalition Provisional Authority."

According to Iraq expert Toby Dodge at the University of Warwick in the UK, the proposal to involve the UN is all "too little, too late".

"The danger now is that diluting the US presence might not do the trick. The resentment against the occupation is so great," Mr Dodge said.

The bombing of the UN, he added, might also put off some potential contributors as the UN itself is now a target for the Iraqi resistance.

US needs others

Mr Dodge told News Online: "After the UN attack, a compromise is being thrashed out in New York. The fact is that the US needs others to come in with money and expertise.

"Paul Bremer, in a Washington Post interview, blew the ship out of the water by revealing that the costs of reconstruction will be huge and cannot be covered by Iraqi oil exports.

"So to get donors in, and there is a donors' conference in New York in October, they have to compromise. Colin Powell has seen that."

The underlying plates in American foreign policy are shifting.

The Bush administration has had as an article of faith a belief that the United States should not get entangled with multinational organisations, other than Nato and it is not altogether happy with Nato.

This fundamental belief was seen in the hostile policies adopted towards the Kyoto agreement on climate change and the International Criminal Court.

Under the influence of Colin Powell, the administration did go to the United Nations to try to get support for the war against Saddam Hussein but it failed and there was a good deal of "We told you so" talk from the Washington hawks afterwards.

Now that things have not gone as planned in Iraq, Mr Powell appears to be having to go back to ask for UN help again. And this time, Washington seems to mean it.