Delicate diplomacy over postwar Iraq

By FRAN O'SULLIVAN

Prime Minister Helen Clark will today take the Cabinet into her confidence on a developing scenario that may yet see New Zealand join "stablisation" forces in Iraq.

If the British-championed scenario succeeds, New Zealand will be asked to commit troops to a multilateral force expected to be in Iraq by the end of the month.

No one wants to jump up and rock the boat on this one until a core of international support is built.

Helen Clark is not saying whether New Zealand will get into the fray.

The Government refused to back the Anglo/American invasion in Iraq because it lacked a United Nations mandate - the first time New Zealand had not fought alongside the United States, Britain and Australia in a major world conflict in almost a century.

The US has also hinted it wants New Zealand to play a part in the reconstruction effort, but the Government has so far contributed only mine-sweepers and humanitarian aid. Anything else would require UN legitimacy.

But the Prime Minister would be foolish to stand back if a diplomatic deal could be crafted that enabled New Zealand to get involved without a major backdown.

The situation is delicate.

Helen Clark was briefed on the strategy by British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Downing Street last week.

Mr Blair wants to ensure UN backing for peacekeeping efforts in Iraq similar to the programme in Afghanistan.

This would give legitimacy to his own efforts as well as the leaders of other nations who might be persuaded to play a part in postwar Iraq.

Mr Blair asked Helen Clark to keep the detail confidential.

Britain wants to get support before working up a new resolution to put to the UN Security Council. Headlines spelling out his proposals before Mr Blair had an opportunity to put them directly to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at Chequers would have been politically inept.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also wanted clear waters to present the proposals to European foreign ministers meeting in Greece at the weekend.

But it is also likely that Mr Blair would have wanted Helen Clark to sound out her own Cabinet first before giving any firm indications.

In any event, the omens are not great.

Mr Rumsfeld confined himself to saying he hoped to see a role in Iraq for the UN "very soon". The British Ministry of Defence said that after extensive discussions, both nations remained in agreement that a role had to be found for the UN.

The European leaders did not give unanimous support. Poland - which next year ascends to European Union status - said it would join the stabilising forces under certain circumstances. Like New Zealand, Poland would prefer a UN mandate, or UN support for the force.

There are fears that if the multilateral forces do not get a UN mandate - and still go in - it will make the transatlantic rift that much wider.

Mr Blair's problem is that the Bush Cabinet is still hyped up on its own testosterone. The British PM wants UN legitimacy for his country's involvement in the postwar occupation. Anything less will cause him considerable political difficulties within his own party.

But with Mr Bush in Top Gun mode (he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a military jet to make his declaration that war was at an end) and Mr Rumsfeld still in victory tour mode, Mr Blair will have to use considerable persuasion and semantic agility to frame a Security Council resolution that will find US support and not be automatically vetoed by France or Russia.

French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin remain key risk factors.

Both opposed the invasion and have been loathe to lend legitimacy to it by supporting peacekeeping efforts.

Mr Blair's actions are not altruistic. He wants to reduce Britain's troop numbers in Iraq to below 10,000 - but that will not happen unless other countries chip in.

Helen Clark got herself offside with the US when she made gauche comments suggesting the Iraq invasion would not have happened if Al Gore had been President.

The Prime Minister backed down and apologised to Mr Bush, but her relationship with key Administration players - while not quite at arm's length - has lost some of its previous personal warmth.

In contrast, Mr Bush hosted Australian Prime Minister John Howard at his Texas ranch at the weekend. Australia contributed forces to Iraq and has also been pressing its case for a slice of the reconstruction contracts for Iraq.

The standoff on Iraq has hurt relationships between some of the world's key political leaders. But the transatlantic rift may be bridged if global trade talks pick up.

Helen Clark used her chairmanship of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ministerial meeting in Paris last week - the first major multilateral gathering since Iraq - to get traction in World Trade Organisation negotiations for the Doha Development Round.

The WTO faces a 2005 deadline for implementing sweeping liberalisation of trade in services, agriculture and manufactured goods.

Paris sources told the Herald that Helen Clark achieved an unparalleled opportunity for a small country to influence the global agenda at the meeting.

OECD officials usually prepare a communique to sum up the annual ministerial meeting. But New Zealand diplomats had negotiated an opportunity for the Prime Minister to put her own stamp on the findings "instead of seeing them watered down to the point of meaningless".

This she did.

OECD trade ministers took up her challenge to make a full commitment to the level of ambition for the negotiations that was set at Doha 18 months ago, make a full commitment to build momentum to "get the job done' by January 2005 and ensure a "balanced outcome" for all.

There are still potential stumbling blocks.

The world's top trade tsars, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and European Union Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, have their work cut out getting nations like France to sign up to the agricultural liberalisation agenda.

But a new mood of co-operation emerged.

Herald Feature: Iraq