Unsurpassed in his ability to raise campaign money at home, US President George W. Bush is coming up short in soliciting international contributions for postwar Iraq. That probably will put new strains on US taxpayers and the military, with the economy already struggling to recover.

Even if the Bush administration gets a new UN resolution, the money and number of troops offered by other countries seem sure to fall far short of what the president has sought.

Continuing trans-Atlantic disagreements over Iraq's future government are keeping a lot of would-be contributors of troops and peacekeeping forces on the sidelines.

"Until it's resolved, no one's going to come forward with a lot of money," said Edwin M. Truman, a former Federal Reserve Board and Treasury Department official, now with the Institute for International Economics.

Further, Bush's request for US$87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, which is expected to win grudging congressional approval, is taking the heat off other countries to step forward now, according to Truman and other analysts.

Most involved in the process say that in the end, other nations will participate. For now, however, the United States appears certain to cover most of the costs.

Bush seems determined not to repeat the mistakes of his father. The first President Bush saw his popularity soar after the 1991 Persian Gulf War only to plummet as the economy soured, contributing to his re-election defeat.

But the elder Bush has had no difficulty financing his Iraq War.

In 1990-91, then-Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady went through Asia and Europe on what was called the "tin cup tour."

They raised roughly US$54 billion, covering most of the estimated US$61 billion spent to protect Saudi Arabia and force Iraq to give up Kuwait.

The countries that coughed up contributions last time were willing partners of the coalition against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Also, most of the money was collected before the first cruise missile was fired.

After the current president's coolly received UN speech last Tuesday, it became clear that quick international aid - financial or military - was not likely.

US diplomats continued to work with other Security Council members on a resolution to give the United States more international help in the occupation of Iraq. But administration officials said it might take as long as a month to negotiate a final draft.

Even if the administration does get its resolution, it could be a hollow victory.

"We're not going to get a lot of international troops with or without a UN resolution," Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld acknowledged last week, suggesting a range of "between zero and 10,000 or 15,000." There are now about 130,000 US forces in Iraq.

Most of the nations asked to send peacekeepers have yet to make commitments.

India and Pakistan are expressing reservations. South Korea has put off a decision until the end of October. Turkey appears to be scaling back the request for 10,000 troops. Russian President Vladimir Putin, joining Bush at Camp David after last week's UN session, has been noncommittal.

As a result, thousands of additional National Guard and Reserve soldiers may have to be called up.

The latest setbacks on Iraq come as Bush's approval ratings have plunged, about a year before the presidential election, and his administration's economy is failing to produce jobs.

Adding to Bush's woes are a slumping dollar and the surprise decision by OPEC to cut its oil output ceiling, raising worries that higher energy costs could crimp consumer spending.

Finance ministers and central bankers from the world's wealthiest nations will be meeting in Spain on October 23-24 to discuss rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan and cutting off funding to terrorists.

Initial costs for Iraq have been put at roughly US$50 billion to US$75 billion over the next three years to five years. The administration is pressing for foreign contributions to cover from one-half to two-thirds of that sum. But no one is rushing to the bank.

Usually large spending programs by the government help stimulate economic growth by providing jobs, something not lost on Bush's advisers. The US economy has shed 3 million jobs since Bush took office.

But US tax dollars spent on rebuilding Iraq will not have much of a stimulative effect at home, said David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's.

"Because the money is being spent in Iraq, it doesn't create as many US jobs as a result. Salaries paid to Iraqi policemen don't add much to the US economy," Wyss said.
 
(China Daily September 29, 2003)