[ OUR OPINION ]
Bush should be flexible
with U.N. in IraqPRESIDENT Bush spoke in unapologetic terms to the United Nations General Assembly about military action in Iraq and the chaos that has followed. His call for other nations to join in the U.S. effort to bring order and sovereignty to Iraq will receive an affirmative answer only if the responsibility is shared with the U.N. Bush should exercise the flexibility needed to obtain that assistance while proposing reform of the U.N. Security Council.
THE ISSUE
President Bush defended U.S. policy in Iraq and called upon U.N. member countries to contribute troops and money to the mission.The United States and opponents of the U.S. military strike on Iraq are not as far apart as they might seem. Bush seems willing in a broad sense to give the U.N. a larger role in rebuilding Iraq and transferring authority to the Iraqis, through a democratic process, which is what the opponents of the military action want. Disagreement exists mainly in the timetable.
Bush suggests that the U.N. help Iraqis develop a constitution, train civil servants and conduct elections. French President Jacques Chirac, who led opposition to the military action, said in a speech following Bush's address that the U.N. should "assist with the gradual transfer of administrative and economy responsibilities to the Iraq institutions, according to a realistic timetable, and to help the Iraqis draft a constitution and to hold general elections."
Chirac also called for the U.N. to "give a mandate to an international force, naturally commanded by the main troop-contributor, that is the United States, in order to ensure the security of Iraq and of all those that are helping to rebuild that country." That should suit President Bush and leaders of countries who have been reluctant to send troops to Iraq without Security Council approval.
Acrimony about the preemptive U.S. military strike, without Security Council approval, remains. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told delegates that the logic behind the attack could lead to "a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force with or without justification." Annan said he intends to establish a panel to examine "fundamental policy issues and the structural changes that may be needed in order to strengthen them." At the top of the panel's agenda should be the Security Council, a World War II relic in desperate need of reform.
The council is comprised of 10 members elected by delegates of the 191 U.N. member countries and five permanent members, victors of 1945. Each of the permanent members -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- has veto power over any resolution before the council. The inclusion of France, Britain and today's Russia and the absence of Japan and Germany is hardly a reflection of modern power, economic or military.
Annan has hinted that he favors increasing the number of permanent members. That would be an improvement, but only with an end to the veto power and a reliance on majority action for approval of resolutions.
