Few expect the world community to respond positively to Bush's reluctant appeal for help this week in Iraq, reports Khaled Dawoud in Washington UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Monday that foreign ministers representing the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China -- will meet in Geneva on Saturday for critical discussions on the US draft resolution. "The day that Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly," Annan told a news conference. "Knowing the positions of the various parties, if they sat and discussed frankly and openly, I think we will be able to find a solution." It is unlikely though that such a solution will come without major compromise from the Bush administration, most analysts believe. Germany, France and Russia will not only ask Washington for a bigger say in Iraq's affairs, but also assurances that it will agree on new rules for international affairs. Namely, the United States should not be able to exploit its position as the world's sole superpower to launch wars at will without seriously considering international concerns and fears of exacerbated instability. There are very few signs until now that the US is ready for major compromises. Speaking four days before the second anniversary of the 11 September attacks, US President George Bush reiterated his claim that the war in Iraq cannot be separated from the larger war on terror. Yet, with the increasing costs of Bush's adventure in Iraq, and few allies willing to help after being alienated by his unilateral method of waging the war, critics at home and abroad expressed worries that the president's strategy was backfiring and actually strengthening terror. Many fear that the increasing instability in Iraq, and the apparent failure of the US president to revive the Middle East peace process and end the occupation of Palestine is creating yet more enemies in the region for the world's sole superpower. If Iraq has indeed turned into a magnet for terrorists in the region seeking to fight the United States, as General Ricardo Sanchez commented, the Iraqi people and countries in the region will suffer the most, and Bush's claims to create a new, democratic and stable Middle East will be nothing but empty rhetoric. Bush's speech this week, however, was in concession to increasing criticism of his policies, and served as a frank admission to the American people that the situation in Iraq is nowhere near as rosy as he had forecast. Bush stunned the Congress and a public evidently frustrated by the rising death toll and staggering costs of the war when he declared that he would ask for $87 billion to finance next year's costs in Iraq, Afghanistan and "elsewhere". If approved, this will be the second major allotment of funds passed by Congress to support Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, totaling an unprecedented figure of $166 billion. This is the largest contribution made by the United States to reconstruct a nation since the Marshall Plan rebuilt a devastated Europe after World War II. Shortly after the war started in April Congress approved a hefty $79 billion bill to finance the first six months of military operations. Bush said that out of the $87 billion he requested in the new annual budget, due to start in October, $66 billion will go for military and intelligence operations, with $51 billion to Iraq, $11 billion for Afghanistan and $2.2 billion to support reserve redeployment. Bush asked the Congress for $1.4 billion to help bear the costs of other nations who may contribute troops, further exposing the fallacy of claims by key administration officials that they were supported by an international "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. Also reflecting growing US involvement in the Horn of Africa and serious fears over the reported presence of Al-Qa'eda members and sympathisers, the administration said it would spend $200 million to combat terrorism in that region. The bill also offers $20 billion for Iraq's reconstruction, a long overdue appropriation which highlights the insufficiency of the original $2.5 billion slotted for the same purpose in April. At that time, the Bush administration expected significant international financial contributions, and also predicted "significant withdrawal or redeployment of troops out of the region within the six-month period". Neither took place. A primary reason for the Bush administration's appeal to the UN for approval for a multinational force under US command to restore stability in Iraq is that the US army is stretched too thin. There are now nearly 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq, besides 11,000 British troops and 9,000 from 28 other countries. A study released by the Congressional Budget Office last week said that the US army would not be able to maintain the same level of troops in Iraq by next spring if the Pentagon was to maintain its annual rotation policy of troops. In his speech on Sunday, Bush would not directly admit the failure of his advisors, particularly those in the Pentagon, to plan for post-war Iraq. Instead of a heroes' welcome from Iraqis and the quick redeployment of troops, the US army is now bogged down in Iraq unable to send its soldiers home. Bush said he would like to see additional international troops, "to share the burden more broadly", announcing that he would not send more US troops to the region. Out of the $20 billion requested for Iraq's reconstruction, $5 billion is earmarked for an Iraqi police force, while the remaining money is to rebuild Iraq's basic infrastructure. The administration hopes to procure $30 to $50 billion in international contributions to reconstruction efforts. In his speech, Bush asked Europe, Japan and Middle Eastern states to contribute, saying "all will benefit from the success of freedom" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Potential donors hailed Bush's willingness to seek more international cooperation, but reaffirmed that their contributions depended on ongoing discussions at the Security Council to determine the UN's role in running Iraq's political, security and economic affairs. France and Germany, both strong opponents of the war against Iraq, said they welcomed a draft resolution presented by US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Security Council last week, but added that it fell short of setting a clear timetable on the transfer of power to Iraqis, restoring their independence and assuring their control over their affairs.
