The Bush administration is preparing a draft security council resolution that would reduce the United Nations to a well-deserved marginal role advising the US on running Iraq until the creation of a new government, diplomats and administration officials said yesterday. The document is certain likely to provoke another serious split in the security council when it is presented, as early as next week. It represents another defeat for Tony Blair and his attempt to push the US towards a more multilateral approach to solving postwar problems.
Sorry, Tony, really, but we're not letting the UN crew into Iraq.
At their Belfast summit this month Mr Blair persuaded George Bush to agree to a joint statement agreeing that the UN would play a "vital role" in rebuilding Iraq. However, it was intentionally immediately clear there was no agreement on what "vital" meant. British officials acknowledged yesterday that the consultative role envisaged in the US draft was not what Mr Blair had in mind. The draft resolution would end sanctions on Iraq and recognise the US-led coalition as the principal authority in the country, pending the creation of an Iraqi interim authority (IIA). It calls on the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, to appoint a special coordinator who would, well behind alongside others, advise the American administrator, Jay Garner.
The special coordinator could, for example, empty the chamber pots.
"The big issue is the balance between the elements," said a security council diplomat. "It is my understanding that the weighting is pretty heavily towards the coalition."
| That means that we started the job, and we expect to finish it, instead of handing it over to UN timeservers and hacks as a vessel for graft. As soon as the UN's cleaned up Ein el-Hilweh, we can talk about another arrangement... |
A US administration official said the details of the draft were still being worked out but that at a "principals meeting" of the president's national security team at the White House on Wednesday a decision had been made to present a single broad resolution, defining roles in post-war Iraq, rather than a series of piecemeal resolutions phasing out UN control, as the state department had suggested.
Hmmmm, I almost like State's approach better: let's have a whole series of votes on limited, well crafted resolutions that each in themselves is eminently reasonable. One to lift the sanctions, one to recognize the IIA, one to allow certain humanitarian organizations in, etc. Let Chiraq decide just how far out he's going to be.
The White House has already supported the Pentagon in blocking a role for UN weapons inspectors in searching Iraq for traces of weapons of mass destruction. The administration claims the job can be done by US-led teams.
| But at this point, that doesn't matter. I'd be in favor of inviting anyone who has a remote interest to come on by and have a look. I wouldn't pay for them to come, though... |
The American official said the draft resolution would be circulated in the security council next week or the week after, adding that the US was braced for a fight. The council was deadlocked in a bitter dispute for months before the war, as Russia, France and China vowed to block a resolution authorising military action. "This is going to be every bit as nasty as the last one," he said. A European diplomat agreed, saying: "This is going to be a very hard debate."
Nah, it will be easy. Vote against us and we'll do what we're going to do anyway.
| And there was always the rumor of a "temporary suspension" of our UN membership from a month or two ago... |
One of the key issues in the debate will be control over Iraq's oil revenues. Under the resolution international organisations — possibly including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank — would sit on an advisory board. However, day-to-day operations would be managed by a former Shell Oil executive, Phillip Carroll, according to the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
Clever — the US has a major say in the IMF and WB. We'd be stacking the deck.
The draft resolution represents a victory for the Pentagon over the state department, which had lobbied for the UN to be given a more substantial role in administering Iraq's oil wealth and in managing the transition to a democratic Iraqi government. "At the principals meeting there was the phased approach of [the department of] state, and another approach that the [defence department] suggested," an administration official said. "And yes, a decision was made to go for a single resolution."
| So it's settled on our end and we can move on to more important things... |
A British official said yesterday that London would continue to play a role in trying to shape details of the document before it was circulated, and then to broker a compromise in the security council in an attempt to avoid deepening the rift left by the war. A battle has broken out in the council even before the US resolution is presented. The US and Britain are attempting to convince Mr Annan to send an envoy to Iraq immediately to observe the US-managed political consultations aimed at laying the foundations for the IIA. The UN secretary general has appointed a special adviser on Iraq — Rafeeuddin Ahmed, a Pakistani expert diplomat — but so far he has not sent him to the country, arguing that such a mission requires the approval of the security council.
Leave him in New York, it won't matter to us.
| Kofi's choice of a Pak expert is probably a really good indication of what we should expect from him in the way of "cooperation." |
|