| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S. Submits U.N. Resolution on Iraq |
| 2003-08-14 |
| Either Negroponte has been a busy lil’ beaver or this was introduced too early. UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States introduced a resolution Wednesday that would establish a U.N. mission in Iraq and welcome the Iraqi Governing Council as ``an important step’’ toward the formation of a true government - but it faced strong opposition from Syria. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte called for a Thursday vote after closed-door consultations, but Syria’s U.N. Ambassador Mikhail The Arab League said last week that its members, including Syria, would not recognize the Governing Council and would instead wait until Iraq is led by an elected government. "Which we hope happens around, um, ... sometime." The United States reached agreement on the text with the other permanent Security Council members - Russia, China, Britain and France - before the draft was presented Wednesday to the 10 non-permanent council members, who are elected for two-year terms, U.N. diplomats said. Last week, Secretary-General Kofi Annan chided council members for failing to say anything about the 25-member Governing Council after three of its members addressed a Security Council meeting July 22. The council should formally establish a U.N. mission to oversee U.N. efforts to help rebuild Iraq and establish a democratic government, he said. Which in turn should consist of them sitting in Baghdad cafes while we do the hard work, since the UN doesn’t have a clue how to establish a democratic government. That call pushed the Security Council’s veto-wielding members to agree on a draft, diplomats said Wednesday - though The draft resolution ``welcomes the establishment of the broadly representative Governing Council of Iraq on July 13, 2003, as an important step towards the formation by the people of Iraq of an internationally recognized, representative government that will exercise the sovereignty of Iraq.’’ It would also establish the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq for one year to support the secretary-general in carrying out the U.N.’s responsibilities in the country. The United States had been pressing for a statement welcoming the Governing Council. But only last week, council diplomats said Washington was not convinced of the need for a U.N. mission because Iraq already has the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority and the Governing Council. ``We are responding to the secretary-general,’’ Negroponte said Wednesday, noting that Annan’s suggestion was discussed and supported by the U.S. government and the coalition. The U.N. operation in Iraq is currently run by Annan’s special representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello. The U.N. Assistance Mission will provide a structure for the U.N.’s operations in Iraq. Annan has proposed the mission include more than 300 civilian staff dealing with humanitarian, political, reconstruction and other issues. Each of whom gets a per diem, an SUV, yadda-yadda, so that they can sit in the cafes of Baghdad and complain about their per diem and SUV whilst sucking down expresso and spooning down food that Baghdaders can’t possibly afford. Gawd forbid any of ’em put in an honest day’s work, they’ll just screw things up more. Gee Steve you sound cynical today. Just the usual. Wehbe said Syria strongly supports a U.N. mission. ``We are supporting the United Nations’ vital role to be more The draft resolution introduced Wednesday makes no mention of a broader U.N. mandate in Iraq sought by France, Germany, India and other countries before they would consider sending troops to the country. Annan reiterated last week that he would support a new U.N. resolution with a broader mandate to get the world to pull together and help stabilize the country. But the secretary-general said, ``The membership are not ready to move on it yet.’’ M. DeVillepin, whom some insist is a man, hasn’t been stroked sufficiently yet. Perhaps Frank could do the honors? |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #9 Schroeder says: "I am happy to see that the United Nations, based on a new resolution, is to find greater engagement and responsibility (in Iraq). But currently, nothing more should be decided on, let alone a German military engagement -- which by the way, no one has requested" He's too busy raising taxes (e.g. trade tax for the liberal professions) and avoiding the dirty "R" word (Germany technically is in recession now). Suppose he's not unhappy about the current U.N. resolution that gives him a cheap excuse not to consider troops for Iraq (that cost money of course). |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-8-14 5:47:59 PM |
| #8 so what's the reaction in Germany, TGA? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-14 4:24:23 PM |
| #7 Looks like German news is faster ;) |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-8-14 3:16:24 PM |
| #6 Yay! Thanks for the update, LH! Haven't seen any mention of the vote yet on any news sites. Rantburg truly is "tomorrow's news today!" |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-8-14 2:53:06 PM |
| #5 resolution passed 14-0, Syria abstaining. Britain, Spain, Cameroon, Guinea, Bulgaria, Chile and Angola were cosponsors. Note presence of 2 states from franco-phone africa on list of cosponsors. Note that Guinea is beneficiary from overthrow of chuckles in Liberia. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-14 2:01:27 PM |
| #4 This probably wont be enough to get troops from Germany, India, or Pakistan (forget France). It will probably ease the situation with Turkey, though. Which gets us the bare minimum we need to releive the 101st and keep the rotation schedule going till spring. A donors conference will be held in Madrid shortly. This may or not be enough to open up the purse strings of Germany,etc. They may insist on a fund to give the UN control over whatever they donate - so what if that means it goes to German/Russian/French contractors - I mean as long as US money remains under US control. Struggle may yet ensue over Iraqi oil money though. Cant see a need for another UNSC res to establish such a fund. So we only go back to the UNSC for more political support IF things get worse, and we need more international troops. When we would have even less leverage than now. Doesnt appear to make sense. Or does the admin have reason to beleive we will soon have MORE leverage than now? Which could come from any number of different sources, from changes on the ground in Iraq, to a new WMD dossier, to changes elsewhere in the region. Hmmmm.......... |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-14 12:20:25 PM |
| #3 I wonder if the Governing Council would consider not recognizing Syria until Syria is led by an elected government. Probably just wishful thinking on my part. |
| Posted by: Dakotah 2003-8-14 12:18:41 PM |
| #2 Syria, would instead wait until it is led by an elected government. Ummm wait.... |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-8-14 9:51:42 AM |
| #1 Screw Syria. As long as there's a majority on the Security Council in favor and no veto from any permanent member, it passes. Let 'em whine. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-8-14 9:42:19 AM |