Tokyo in a bind over contributions for Iraq

[dArKeR]

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi will likely greet U.S. President George W. Bush with open arms next month-but the wallet may be closed.

Bush said in a speech Sunday that he plans to ask Congress for $87 billion (about 10 trillion yen) to cover military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senior administration officials have also said an extra $30 billion to $55 billion would be needed for Iraq's reconstruction.

Bush will likely press Koizumi for contributions when he visits Japan on Oct. 17 on his way to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Bangkok.

But Tokyo is not prepared for such a request.

The Japanese government has yet to define its strategy on Iraq. Even the dispatch of Self-Defense Forces to the country-the topic of fierce debate-is up in the air because of instability in Iraq.

http://www.asahi.com/english/international/K2003091100198.html

[E_Zapata]

1. Didn't they just vote to mobilze troops for the 1st time since WW2?

That's a 180.

[papou]

2. Paris and Bonn see Bush misrepresenting their position -reject new UN vote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1040801,00.html

Paris dispatch

Plus ça change ...

France has not exactly jumped at the latest US proposals for troop deployments in Iraq. Jon Henley experiences a sense of déjà vu

Friday September 12, 2003

"France and Germany, the leading opponents of a US-led intervention in Iraq, have rejected an American-drafted security council resolution aimed at ... " Sounds horribly familiar, doesn't it? As I recall, the same kind of opening paragraph appeared on the top of a great many news stories earlier this year, in the run-up to the American and British invasion of Iraq. And, looking pretty much identical, here it is again, this time in relation to Washington's unexpected call last week for more countries to contribute troops and money to its embattled post-war occupation.

Two days ago, Paris and Berlin (just as they did before) submitted amendments to the US draft, essentially offering Washington a deal: we will approve American military leadership of a multinational force in Iraq, but only if US political control is downgraded in favour of the Iraqis themselves and the United Nations.Predictably, the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, stamped on that one robustly, publicly ridiculing the idea that America might give up power quickly and - in another depressing echo of those bruising pre-war clashes - rather misrepresenting the Franco-German position.
"Suggestions that ... all we have to do is get up tomorrow morning and find an Iraqi who is passing by and give him the government and say, 'You're now in charge and Ambassador Bremer and the American army are leaving', that's not an acceptable solution," he said. Nor, of course, is it exactly what France and Germany are proposing.
<snip>

French officials, from President Jacques Chirac down, warned repeatedly before the war that America was biting off more than it alone could chew. A all-but-unilateral invasion would only encourage further terrorist attacks, create a vast range of new and unpredictable political, economic and security-related problems in Iraq, and risked destabilising the entire region, they said. Most of this has proved true. But perhaps surprisingly, no one in Paris is reminding Washington of that now.(That hasn't stopped the press, of course: Le Monde opined in a recent editorial that the world was "a rather more complex place" than America clearly believed, and warned that Washington must "listen to its allies, take into account the contrasting situations in which it intervenes, and respect the international rules that it once helped draw up." It concluded: "The record of these past two years should serve as a powerful reminder of those principles.")

Second, there is no doubt that France came to the painful realisation almost as soon as the war began that, whatever the outcome, it had gone too far for its own good in so adamantly opposing America's drive for war. The principles behind that opposition were (and are) right, Paris still believes, but the tactics deployed were perhaps excessive, and above all susceptible to spin....The French foreign minister, Domininique de Villepin, has made plain that this time around Paris is determined to work "sensibly and constructively" with Washington in arriving at a resolution acceptable to both sides: that is to say, one that accelerates the end of the occupation and gives Iraqis, under UN supervision, more authority over civilian life, including oil resources, while at the same time leaving American amour-propre more or less intact. But France is also well aware that it holds a lot more chips this time. <snip>

... Paris aims to get at least part of what it wants: in de Villepin's words, "the handing of political power back to the Iraqi people without delay ... within a matter of months. We have to move fast from a logic of occupation to a logic of sovereignty."
Concretely, France believes, that means reorganising Iraq's current governing council so that it can become "a true government of transition", and clearly defining "a constitutional and electoral process ... accompanied by a precise and tight timetable", all in close consultation with the UN and with the backing of Iraq's neighbours. The foreign ministers of the five permanent security council members, including Powell and de Villepin, will meet in Geneva this weekend to make a start on hammering out some kind of deal. <snip>

[dArKeR]

3. In my opinion this is shaking the head yes but never will sign with the

hand.

All the European's are just giving Junior lip service. Yes, yes, we understand, ok let's talk about it... but NOT ONE will ever send troops to Iraq. It would be political suicide. NEVER. Use your brains!