Coalition lacks many nations

WASHINGTON - From the world's farthest corners, Argentina and Australia are in. But Arab powers and former partners Egypt and Syria are out. And front-line states Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have a foot in each camp.

Seven years after the Persian Gulf War, the United States this week put finishing touches on a new coalition supporting the use of military force against Iraq if it continues to block U.N. inspectors from seeking out weapons of mass destruction.

But the new coalition differs dramatically from the stunning assemblage of more than three dozen nations that launched "Operation Desert Storm."

This one is modest, at best. Its primary value is symbolic. Its combined military might is but a fraction of the original. And evaluating its clout is very much a case of looking at a glass that is either half full or half empty.

"We may disagree in the end with some of our friends," National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger conceded in a National Press Club speech last week. "Sustaining our policy will require constant vigilance. It will, from time to time, cause tension with our friends and allies."

The Clinton administration had hoped 20 nations would participate - just more than half the 38 countries in the original coalition. So far, about 15 have signed on or are considering it. But with the exception of Britain, offers of troops, materiel or access to bases are largely tokens.

New Zealand, the most recent addition, is offering only two surveillance aircraft and 20 special forces commandos. Oman will allow five refueling planes to be stationed at its bases. And the Czech Republic has offered land mine experts, an unlikely need for airstrikes.

Contributions contrast sharply with original roles in 1990-91. Argentina provided two naval vessels for Desert Storm; this time it offers 100 medical personnel. Germany sent five minesweepers, a support ship and an ammunition ship in 1990; now it will allow use of air bases in Germany for supply and logistics.

Those who look at the glass as half full contend that the most extensive military strike since the Gulf War would only require limited assistance. Time is also a factor.

"President Bush had six months to build a coalition," U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson said in an interview. "Regrettably, we've only had two months, and so far we've done pretty well for our brief, yet intensive, efforts."

The critical difference between being in and out is explained in part by the issue at stake.

02-19-98