US turns to UN for help in Iraq

One country capable of providing large numbers of such troops, India, decided in July against sending the 17,000 men the US had asked for, in the absence of a UN mandate.

Turkey is pondering contributing as many as 10,000 soldiers - particularly welcome because of their Muslim background that could ease their way in Iraq - but Turkish Premier Tayyip Erdogan told the Italian daily Repubblica yesterday that "We would like to see the stabilization force formed with a decision from the United Nations or NATO."

That would make a Turkish contribution more palatable to a public generally opposed to the plan. "I think the majority of Turks are uneasy with the idea," says Sedat Ergin, the Ankara bureau chief of the Hurriyet daily.

"The picture everyone sees from abroad is one of chaos and anarchy, so sending troops to Iraq is a source of tension."

STILL unresolved, however, is the question of who would pay for such troops. The multinational force that US planners envisage would not be a United Nations peacekeeping contingent of "Blue Helmets," paid for by the UN.

It's expected to be more like the UN mandated, NATO organized force in Kosovo, under a unified US command.

That would probably mean that the US would have to pay poor countries such as India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh for their help, just as it is paying for Poland's 2,300 man contingent.

Some UN members, especially those hostile to the war, could ask a high political price for a new Security Council resolution, analysts suggest.

Though France "does not want to gloat" over the difficulties in which the US finds itself, says Mr. Parmentier, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin made it clear last week that Paris is seeking a radical change in direction from Washington.

"It is time to advance resolutely within the logic of sovereignty for Iraq," he told a meeting of his country's ambassadors in Paris. "It is not enough to deploy more troops, more technical or financial means. A real change in approach is required.

"It is essential that a genuine provisional government be put in place, whose legitimacy will be reinforced by the United Nations," he went on. "For our country, the arrangements that are finally made cannot be simply the enlargement or adjustment of the current occupation forces. It is a question of putting in place a genuine international force under a UN Security Council mandate."

This appears to be considerably more than US policymakers have in mind. The new resolution "will be an elaboration ... rather than a redirection or a departure of where we were before," a State Department official said yesterday.

While skepticism remains strong in some quarters of the White House, the dominant view nonetheless seems to be that the US can get two things it wants - a UN mandate while retaining overall military command - at relatively little cost.

US officials in Baghdad say they have no plans to install a sovereign Iraqi government until after elections scheduled for late next year. In the meantime, a US-appointed Governing Council will run the country, in consultation with occupation forces.

• Staff writers Howard LaFranchi in Washington and Ilene R. Prusher in Baghdad contributed to this report.

Page: 1 | 2