現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争３７ > 233.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争３７ > 233.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
(回答先: ニューヨークタイムズ：アメリカはイラク統治で国連に戻らざるを得ない。他の国が国連の同意なしの協力を拒否するから。日本はどうする？ 投稿者 木村愛二 日時 2003 年 7 月 19 日 22:49:59)
上手く出来てなければボツでお願いします。
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/international/worldspecial/19DIPL.html?hp
U.S. May Be Forced to Go Back to U.N. for Iraq Mandate
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
ASHINGTON, July 18 ・The Bush administration, which spurned the United Nations in its drive to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq, is finding itself forced back into the arms of the international body because other nations are refusing to contribute peacekeeping troops or reconstruction money without United Nations approval.
With the costs of stabilizing Iraq hovering at $4 billion a month and with American troops being killed at a steady rate, administration officials acknowledge that they are rethinking their strategy and may seek a United Nations resolution for help that would placate other nations, like India, France and Germany.
Administration officials contend that they are being practical, but within their ranks are policy makers sharply critical of the United Nations and those who would consider it humiliating to seek its mantle after risking American lives in the invasion that ousted Mr. Hussein.
The administration's quandary deepened today, when Russia announced that it would consider sending peacekeeping troops but only with a United Nations mandate that set out a specific mission and timetable.
President Bush's meeting this week with Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, was part of a flurry of consultations in recent days between administration and United Nations officials. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, reached out to diplomats on the Security Council, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell emerged from a meeting with the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, saying he was discussing ways to expand international support for the Iraq occupation, including seeking a new United Nations resolution.
Mr. Powell said Security Council Resolution 1483, which was approved in May and calls on all members to assist in Iraq's reconstruction, should be enough "cover" for countries to claim an endorsement from the United Nations. But he acknowledged that the nations that matter most are not buying that.
"There are some nations who have expressed the desire for more of a mandate from the United Nations, and I am in conversations with some ministers about this, as well as with the secretary general of the United Nations," Mr. Powell said.
The discussions reflect a growing sense that the reconstruction of Iraq will require a new international alliance. For all their rapid success in the military phase, the American-led forces are struggling to establish stability and normalcy in Iraq. A Pentagon advisory panel that just returned from Iraq reported a pressing need for international assistance.
Even supporters of the administration's policy say its efforts are in jeopardy, and minute military planning gave way to disarray once the major combat ended.
"It's increasingly clear there was really some underestimation of the number of people who would be required after the regime fell, and the length of time required to stay there," said Paul Saunders, director of the Nixon Center, a nonpartisan research organization whose honorary chairman is Henry A. Kissinger.
Mr. Saunders said there were two reasons for the United States to go back to the United Nations.
"It would be helpful to diffuse responsibility for this massive undertaking, and share any dissatisfaction with others and not be the sole target ourselves," he said. "Externally, it's also helpful in rebuilding some of the relationships that were strained in the dispute over going in."
Several nations have chafed at the idea of submitting their troops to American-British control. Others, which clashed with the United States and withheld support for a resolution authorizing war, want to tweak Washington for disregarding them.
India dealt the administration a sharp blow this week, refusing to send peacekeeping troops unless they operated under the auspices of the United Nations. The administration, which had lobbied New Delhi strenuously, had been hoping for a full division of 17,000 peacekeepers, which would have made India the second largest military presence in Iraq after the United States.
The administration had been particularly eager to enlist the Indians, because their presence is widely seen as a bellwether for numerous other developing countries.
U.S. May Be Forced to Go Back to U.N. for Iraq Mandate
(Page 2 of 2)
In Moscow, Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov said that Russia would consider sending troops but that a new United Nations resolution was "the most likely way of securing the participation of a large number of countries."
One diplomat on the United Nations Security Council said virtually no additional nations ・with the exception of some in pro-American Eastern Europe ・were willing to place their troops under American or British control in Iraq. "It would create a lot of problems for them," said the diplomat, who has been courted by White House officials.
Currently, 19 nations have a troop presence in Iraq, and Pentagon officials say 19 more have promised to send forces. About 13,000 non-American troops are now in the country, most of them British, compared with about 147,000 Americans.
Some military experts say the United States should move quickly to reduce the overwhelmingly American cast to the occupation. More foreign peacekeepers could relieve American troops who are already taxed by combat and extended stays, and now must contend with tedious chores, like protecting buildings. Peacekeepers from other countries also might lessen Iraqi resentment toward the Americans.
"Iraqis are extremely sensitive about being occupied," said Robert C. Orr, the Washington director of the Council on Foreign Relations, who took part in the Pentagon's advisory panel. "It just doesn't feel the same if an Indian or Pakistani soldier is on the corner than if it's an American in Kevlar."
Administration officials have been reluctant to return to the United Nations on Iraq matters since the nasty breakdown of talks in the Security Council over whether to authorize war. The standoff was particularly damaging to relations with France and Germany, which sought to give United Nations inspectors more time to seek prohibited Iraqi weapons.
Before the American-led attack, United States officials and lawmakers chided their longtime allies, and the House of Representatives banned the term "French fries" from the cafeteria. Mr. Bush warned that the United Nations risked fading "into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society."
Apart from the bad blood, administration officials worry that United Nations participation might force them to cede operational control over Iraq, even as the United States continues to pay most of the cost.
Polls show that the French and the Germans are not convinced that the war was necessary. But they are eager to normalize relations with Washington, European officials say.
"We are certainly not pleased to see the Americans having problems, because winning the peace is in the interest of everyone," said Jean-Marc de la Sabli鑽e, France's United Nations ambassador.
The administration would particularly like help in covering reconstruction costs. It has set up a donors' conference for October but risks falling far short without a diplomatic breakthrough.
Mr. Fischer, the German foreign minister, and Christopher Patten, the European Union's commissioner for external affairs, discussed the possibility of financial support in meetings with Mr. Powell this week.
The catch to Europe's offer is that donations must be administered by an international organization, the United Nations Development Program or the World Bank.
At the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador, said it was unclear whether a new resolution might be offered to placate potential peacekeeping contributors. "It's a question of what potential contributors want, whether the Security Council could give them what they wanted and whether the authority on the ground could give them what they wanted," he said.
A senior Indian diplomat in New York said today that some United Nations diplomats were arguing that the current resolution acknowledging the allies' control could be amended to meet the concerns expressed in New Delhi, Moscow and Paris. Others, he said, think a new resolution is required.
Unless such a resolution could ensure that Indian troops were seen to be serving the needs of the Iraqi people ・not those of the American and British occupiers ・ the diplomat said it would be difficult to get popular support for a decision to send troops.
In private discussions, Ms. Rice has told diplomats that greater involvement by the United Nations may be on the horizon. Mr. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, are said to favor a United Nations role, while Vice President Dick Cheney and his aides have argued against it.
Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said today that the administration was looking forward to a Security Council briefing next week by the United Nations representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and members of the new Iraqi Governing Council, to advance the discussions.
Joseph S. Nye Jr., dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, said it would be philosophically hard for some administration officials to return to the United Nations.
"They'll disguise it; they'll find ways to excuse it," Mr. Nye said. "For some of them ・in particular those who celebrated that we didn't use the U.N. ・it will be painful."
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。