Bush Aide Says US, not UN, Will Rebuild Iraq
By David E Sanger with John Tagliabuet
5 April 2003
President Bush's national security adviser said today that the American-led alliance had shed "life and blood" in the Iraq war and would reserve for itself — and not the UN — the lead role in creating a new Iraqi government.
In declaring that the UN would have a secondary role in reconstructing Iraq and leading the country toward eventual elections, the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, seemed certain to fuel the latest transAtlantic dispute between the Bush administration and its traditional allies.At a meeting in Paris today, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia issued a statement referring to the "central role" of the UN in creating a new Iraq. The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said that "there should be no discussion either on the principle or on the terms" of UN participation in Iraq.
Ms Rice's remarks appeared to diverge somewhat from those of secretary of state Colin L. Powell, on Thursday. After meeting in Brussels with the French, German and Russian officials and the foreign ministers of 20 other European countries, he said that the US was prepared to cooperate with the international community, and most notably the UN, in a building a postwar Iraq, but that at least initially, the military coalition would play the leading role.
Emerging from a meeting in Washington today with the EU's chief representative for foreign policy, Javier Solana, Mr Powell continued to walk a line between the pro- and anti-UN positions, saying, "We're at the beginning of a process of dialogue, pragmatic dialogue, to determine what the appropriate role of the UN should be." He said he expected the UN to have a "major" role, but he did not define what that role would be.
But in the Paris meeting, the French, German and Russian foreign ministers called for the UN to be given an immediate and central role in Iraq.
"No country or countries can hope to win the war alone," Mr. de Villepin said. "Nobody can hope to build peace alone."
Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, who sided with France in opposing the war, said there was a "very broad convergence of views on the central role of the UN."
The ministers also called for the earliest possible halt to the fighting in Iraq.
The Russian foreign minister, Igor S Ivanov, who joined forces with France last month in opposition to a security council resolution authorizing the war, said today, "We must insist today on the earliest possible cessation of hostilities."
Mr Ivanov said it was "premature to talk of modalities after the war as long as the hostilities continue." He added, "Our efforts are aimed above all at ending the war and resolving the humanitarian problems."
Emphasizing that the Europeans sought a harmonious relationship with the US, Mr Ivanov said, "We address these words to our partners, with whom we are maintaining dialogue, since the end of the war can only profit everyone."
But Mr de Villepin criticized the awarding of contracts to American companies for the reconstruction of Iraq. French businessmen have grown increasingly nervous recently over the prospect that the US, upset over French opposition to the war, might punish French companies by shutting them out of Iraq.
"Iraq is not a cake or an El Dorado to be divided up," Mr de Villepin said.
But Ms Rice said repeatedly today that while there was a role for the UN in Baghdad, "Iraq is not East Timor, Kosovo and Afghanistan" — all countries where the United Nations played a central role.
In blunt terms, she made it clear that nations that did not join the fighting to oust Mr Hussein should not expect the leading role in deciding what kind of government would follow him.
"It would only be natural to expect that after having participated and having liberated Iraq, coalition forces, having given life and blood to liberate Iraq, that the coalition would have the leading role," Ms Rice told reporters at the White House.
Ms Rice also sought to put down an internal struggle in the administration over how it would create an Iraqi interim authority, a temporary organization of Iraqis who would start rebuilding the country and would ultimately lead to the creation of a formal government.
Secretary of defense Donald H Rumsfeld recently urged Mr Bush quickly to install Iraqi exiles — who are in favor at the Pentagon but not at the State Department or the White House — as an interim authority in southern Iraq. This would give an enormous leg up to to those exiles, including Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, who has insisted on a major role.
Some of those exiles, not including Mr Chalabi, met with Mr Bush in the White House today. Mr Bush did not tell them when he expected a government to be declared or when the war would be over, but as he left the room, he turned to the group and without prompting uttered a single word: "Soon."
In her presentation to reporters today, Ms Rice never mentioned Mr Rumsfeld or the agenda he shares with some of the administration's more hawkish figures. But she made it clear that Mr Bush planned to open the Iraqi interim authority to all Iraqis — both exiles and those who are newly freed because of the war — and her words seemed intended to put an end the latest debate between the Pentagon and the State Department.
"Condi was clearly sending a message that it's time for Rumsfeld and his friends to back off," said one senior diplomat who has been on the other side of this dispute.
A White House official agreed that Mr Rumsfeld "got a bit ahead of where the president is."
Mr Powell and Mr Rumsfeld had separate meetings with the president this morning. But Ms Rice noted that the country would be under the effective control of Gen Tommy R. Franks, the commander of the Iraq campaign.
Mr Bush has reportedly questioned in recent meetings how Iraqi exiles, some of whom have been out of the country for decades, could effectively begin to take over the administration of Iraqi daily life, from water supplies to schools. But the administration's bigger fear is that newly freed Iraqis would not have a chance at demonstrating their qualifications.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times