| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| UN debates Iraq mandate extension |
| 2005-11-03 |
| The United Nations Security Council on Thursday began a debate on extending the mandate of US-led foreign forces in Iraq, which is set to expire at the end of this year. Iraqi politicians, meanwhile, say that there may need to be new regulations on how US troops operate to satisfy the demands of Sunni Arabs, who are expected to wield new power after elections set for December 15. UN Security Council resolution 1546, which gives the US-led multinational force broad licence to maintain security in Iraq, expires after the December elections and the subsequent formation of a government ends Iraqâs transitional âpolitical processâ. The Security Council began on Thursday to circulate a US-sponsored draft resolution extending that mandate to December 2006, after receiving a letter from Iraqâs Shia- and Kurdish-dominated government. It also states that this agreement should be reviewed eight months later, or could be reviewed or terminated at the request of the Iraqi government. There was no word on when the text might be put to a vote. âThe [current UN] mandate includes all necessary measures, the power to do whatever force you need to do, including detention,â a senior Pentagon official said. âThe bottom line is to extend the mandate so that whatever authority you have now will continue until a new Iraqi government and the coalition can work something out differently,â he said. The new government will include a large contingent of Sunni Arabs, who largely stayed away from the polls in the last elections but who are expected to turn out in droves in December. Virtually all of Iraqâs prominent Sunni Arab politicians have criticised US military operations. Some have called for immediate withdrawal of foreign troops, and many others call for a withdrawal timetable. Most Shia and Kurdish leaders say that the troops should remain, as the countryâs military is still incapable of fighting the insurgency on its own. As a compromise, some Iraqi leaders have suggested that there may be a âstatus of forcesâ agreement between the Iraqi government and the coalition that would govern the foreign troops presence. âI disagree with those who are asking for a timetable, but I would agree with them that we need to have a modality by which the presence of foreign troops could be regulated or ended one way or the other,â said Iraqi deputy prime minister Barham Salih, a Kurd. âIf there is an operation in [Sunni Arab towns like] Haditha or al-Qaem or Ramadi, [Sunni leaders] can also be part of the decision making,â he said. Mr Saleh also said there needed to be aggressive investigation of reported human rights abuses of detainees held by the Iraqi security forces. However, Mr Saleh declined to offer details of changes in how US forces might operate. Sunni Arab leaders have many specific complaints about US military behaviour â use of heavy weapons and air strikes that kill bystanders, insurgent suspects held incommunicado for lengthy periods without trial, or roads closed and orchards bombed as a form of collective punishment against communities which harbour guerrillas. However, some may be reluctant to call for regulating and therefore legitimising a force that many Sunni consider to be an unacceptable violation of national sovereignty. Many Iraqis believe that the presence of foreign troops harms security, but others believe immediate withdrawal would make things worse. Iraqi politicians point out that the new elections would at least bring a public debate on the rules governing the US military presence â a debate that so far has been held behind closed doors. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #3 That's the point of the discussion about a status of forces agreement. But we don't have one now. At this point we are in the country with a UN mandate to return the country to its own governance. There may be a gap between the time the UN mandate expires and the SOF agreement is reached. That will be papered over by an extesion of the UN mandate or not. It really won't make any difference to what we do. This is just politicians who opposed the war and Sunnis mouthing off. What they say will affect nothing unless we agree to it. Let the ankle biters play. It keeps them amused and out of serious matters. |
| Posted by: Gleans Angeling6932 2005-11-03 18:08 |
| #2 Since the Iraqis have voted on -- and accepted -- a constitution, what gives the UN any grounds to have a say? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-03 17:58 |
| #1 Mandate? Extension? What in the hell are they talking about? Can someone tell me when (if ever) the un became relevant as to what goes on in Iraq? We will call them when we need white collar criminals, but until then STFU. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-03 17:57 |