US embassy cable - 03COLOMBO1551

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001551 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/MR, I/RW, I/REC; PA SA/INS (CAMP, 
WALLER), SA/PD (SCHWARTZ, SCENSNY), SSA/PAS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KPAO, OPRC, KMDR, OIIP, CE 
SUBJECT: MEDIA PLAY: SRI LANKAN COLUMNIST SAYS U.S., 
"BOGGED DOWN IN IRAQ, CRAWLS BACK TO UN" 
 
In a 9/7 iteration of his weekly piece, "Inside the glass 
house" Sri Lankan columnist Thalif Deen virulently attacked 
U.S. policy in Iraq.  The column, subtitled "Bogged down in 
Iraq, US crawls back to UN," says that the U.S., which "did 
not need the blessings of the United Nations to go into 
Iraq," is now "facing the hard reality that it needs the 
United Nations -- just to get out of Iraq."  But, Deen 
argues, "there will be hard political bargaining behind 
closed doors before any resolution sees the light of day," 
with the French and the Germans, plus, possibly, the Arab 
League and the NAM, leading the opposition.  The column 
closes:  "Amidst all this hoopla, nobody has bothered to 
ask whether the Iraqis would really welcome a multinational 
peacekeeping force.  Or will this force also go the way of 
the US-British coalition?" 
 
2. "Bogged down in Iraq, US crawls back to UN" follows 
verbatim: 
 
Quote. 
 
NEW YORK-- As the world's only superpower, the US did not 
need the blessings of the United Nations to go into Iraq. 
But six bloodied months later, it is facing the hard 
reality that it needs the United Nations-- just to get out 
of Iraq. 
 
The US is looking for an escape route out of a growing 
military quagmire in Iraq where 140,000 American troops are 
now bogged down in a war of attrition.  Madeleine Albright, 
a former US Secretary of State and an ex-US ambassador to 
the United Nations, says that the Bush administration once 
dismissed the world body as "bureaucratic, ineffective, 
undemocratic, anti-US and irrelevant". 
 
So why is the US crawling back to the United Nations 
seeking assistance from an Organisation it despised?  To 
gradually get its soldiers out of an increasingly deadly 
country where Americans are dying at an average of about 
one per day?  To get international economic assistance for 
the reconstruction of Iraq? 
 
All of this -- and more.  The war on Iraq -- and 
particularly its disastrous aftermath -- has turned out to 
be one of the Bush administration's biggest foreign policy 
debacles. 
 
One newspaper called the new US appeal to the UN a 
"humiliating" experience for the White House. 
 
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative 
hardliners in the Bush administration were the primary 
architects behind the war.  They were right in describing 
the war as a "cake walk" -- lining up some of the world's 
most sophisticated weapons against a militarily weak, 
sanctions-hit country. 
 
But they were dead wrong in assuming that in post-war Iraq 
American troops will be welcomed with "rose petals" in the 
streets of Baghdad.  The "rose petals" have turned out to 
be car bombs, landmines and explosive incendiary devices. 
 
While the US is still scrambling to put together an 
international peace keeping force -- described as "a 
coalition of the willing" -- the speculation is that there 
is already "a coalition of the willing" of all the world's 
terrorist groups who have assembled in Iraq to turn the 
country into a shooting gallery. 
 
President Bush's decision to return to the UN is also a 
defeat for Rumsfeld and a morale booster for Secretary of 
State Colin Powell.  Dangling carrots before the Security 
Council, the US last week tried to win support for a new UN 
resolution for a multi-national peacekeeping force in Iraq 
by pledging a time-table for elections and the restoration 
of sovereignty to the Iraqi people currently under American 
military occupation. 
 
After speaking to key members of the Security Council -- 
including France, Russia and Germany -- Powell told 
reporters that the proposed resolution will not only call 
for a new multinational force but also provide a specific 
time frame for elections in Iraq. 
 
According to the US, the new force will be under a unified 
US military command, not a UN command.  But there will be 
hard political bargaining behind closed doors before any 
resolution sees the light of day. 
 
The strongest opposition is expected to come from France 
whose President, Jacques Chirac, says the resolution does 
not go far enough.  Germany, a close ally of France in the 
Security Council, is equally hesitant.  German Chancellor 
Gerhard Schroder, who like Chirac opposed the US war on 
Iraq, is once again backing France against the US. 
 
Both countries want an end to the military occupation, full 
sovereignty to the Iraqi people and a larger political 
authority to the UN to rebuild the war-ravaged country.  If 
the US refuses to accede to French demands, the two 
countries may be heading on a collision course in the 
Security Council:  a replay of an earlier dispute between 
the two veto wielding members. 
 
The US was forced to go to war with Iraq without UN 
authorisation because France threatened to exercise its 
veto.  But so far Chirac has not made any threats.  The US 
has already indicated it wants the new resolution adopted 
before President Bush visits the UN to address the General 
Assembly sessions on Sep. 23.  But that may seem too 
optimistic and ambitious -- unless Washington caves into 
French and German demands. 
 
The 119-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the largest 
single Third World political body at the UN, has not taken 
a stand on the creation of a new multinational force 
primarily because 22 Arab states who are members of NAM are 
abiding by a decision taken by the League of Arab States on 
the aftermath of the war on Iraq. 
 
The League has refused to recognise both the legitimacy of 
the Iraqi Governing Council -- whose 25 members have been 
described as US "puppets" -- or the US military occupation 
of Iraq.  Amidst all this hoopla, nobody has bothered to 
ask whether the Iraqis would really welcome a multinational 
peacekeeping force.  Or will this force also go the way of 
the US-British coalition? 
 
End quote. 
 
3. Comment.  Deen's column, "Inside the glass house," 
appears weekly in the SUNDAY TIMES (independent English 
weekender).  The TIMES is published by the Wijeya Group, 
publishers of the DAILY MIRROR (independent English daily), 
LANKADEEPA (independent Sinhala daily), and SUNDAY 
LANKADEEPA (independent Sinhala weekender).  The Wijeya 
Groups newspapers are among the most respected in Sri 
Lanka.  Nevertheless, Deen's column is resolutely anti- 
American. 
 
Lunstead