You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Iraq-U.N. Deal Expected to Be Accepted
2004-06-08
The United States appeared to win important French and German approval Monday for a resolution on Iraq that will confer legitimacy on the interim government taking over from the U.S.-led occupation. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said he expects the Security Council to approve the U.S.-British resolution on Tuesday afternoon, and council diplomats said the vote could be unanimous. "We think this is an excellent resolution," Negroponte said. It marks "the fact that Iraq is entering into a new political phase, one where it is reasserting its full sovereignty." The draft resolution - revised four times over the past two weeks - also marks an end to the occupation and partly defines the relationship between the new government and the U.S.-led multinational force. Key elements are how much authority the Iraqi leadership will have over its own armed forces and whether it will have a say in U.S.-led military operations.
And since the interim gummint will be "sovereign", it will be free to alter the relationship as it wishes. Expect the weasels not to fare well.
A last-minute addition Monday by the United States and Britain on Iraq's "security partnership" with U.S.-led forces was the key compromise. France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said "there are a lot of improvements" and "the text is going in the right direction now." "I think we have reached a stage where the resolution has a very good text," Germany's U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said. "My feeling is we have found a compromise." France wanted the resolution to state clearly that Iraq's interim government will have authority over its armed forces, that Iraqi forces can refuse to take part in operations by the multinational force, and that the new government could veto "sensitive offensive operations" by the U.S.-led force. The draft sent to the 15-member Security Council earlier Monday did not include any of these proposals. But the United States and Britain revised the draft to address the relationship between the international force that will provide security and the government that will assume power on June 30. The text now welcomes the exchange of letters between Iraq's new prime minister and Secretary of State Colin Powell and their pledge to work together to reach agreement on "the full range fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations."
Which means what we and the Iraqis want it to mean.
It also notes "that Iraqi security forces are responsible to appropriate Iraqi ministers, that the government of Iraq has authority to commit Iraqi security forces to the multinational force to engage in operations with it" and that the new security bodies outlined in the letters will be used to reach agreement on military and security issues. The resolution says the interim government will have authority to ask the force to leave, but Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi indicated in a letter to Powell that the force will remain at least until an elected transitional government takes power early next year. The latest draft addressed a second issue raised by France, which wanted to ensure that any international assistance to Iraq, including foreign troops, was at the request of the interim government. The new resolution asks U.N. member states and regional and international organizations "to contribute assistance to the multinational force, including military forces, as agreed with the government of Iraq." It added language welcoming the interim government's commitment "to work towards a federal, democratic, pluralist and unified Iraq." It also reaffirmed the right of Iraqis to "exercise full authority and control over their financial and natural resources."
Which doesn't mean what the French hope it means.
Posted by:Steve White

#21  Willpower, folks, don't fade or falter and try not to snipe

amen. Sounds like .com gettnig a second wind. :)
Posted by: Shipman   2004-06-08 6:23:06 PM  

#20  Liberalhawk-
I guess what I am trying to say about public opinion is that, once you begin down the road of altering your actions based on the reaction of others, whose life, whose beliefs are you living? At what point does concern for public opinion become an obligation to the approval of others? And after that, where does principled action lie?

I think our basic disagreement, Liberalhawk, is on whether the UN has emerged from the Iraq War aftermath as valuable and intact.
Posted by: jules 187   2004-06-08 3:48:22 PM  

#19  Jules - if we were giving up a lot to get the UNSC resolution Id be concerned with your points. But given that we're NOT, i dont understand them.

It seems pretty clear that having a UNSC res wont HURT us with public opinion in Iraq. It might help, or it might be a zero. 2. The res puts them under our command - and we will use them in ways that fit our strategy, and their reliability. In any case we and the Iraqis can always turn them down - again, having the res can help, but cant hurt. 4. But how does having the Res make that worse - it doesnt. Again, it either helps, or has zero impact. 5. Youre missing the point, the res shifts oil for food to Iraqi control - the ultimate goal is to eliminate it entirely, but we havent reached that yet. Its tied up with certifying Iraq free of WMD.

so in all this is AT worst a political help to Blair, Howard, Berlusconi, (and Bush) at BEST it brings tangible help. Why discount it, other than reflexive UN bashing?
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-06-08 3:35:56 PM  

#18  1. More support on the ground in Iraq...it gives it a legal imprimatur that US will alone doesnt have...EVEN if the international body is one whose connivance at the old dictatorship iraqis resent.
And why is that? Be careful. Ibsen was right--public opinion can be a very treacherous force to put your faith in.
2. Easier chance of getting several thousand more third world troops, whose nominal role will be to guard the UN facility in Iraq. Knockem all you want, every little bit helps. Ever heard of too many chiefs...and how committed will forces from the third world be when the going gets bloody?
4. More pressure to write off Iraqi debts. That's a pretty big assumption-why do you assume that? Couldn't pressure just as easily be applied to the US to swallow our financial losses and take it on the chin for having the nerve to act preemptively?
5. Easier to dismantle oil for food. How reliable are criminals at policing themselves and how known are Europeans for eliminating handouts?
6. Easier to apply pressure nations allowing transit of terrorists into Iraq. Jury is still out on this one-but I'll cede this point. It's an important one.
Posted by: jules 187   2004-06-08 2:51:50 PM  

#17  Lets see UN approval buys us
1. More support on the ground in Iraq. Not they love the UN - they dont - but it gives it a legal imprimatur that US will alone doesnt have. Look the left has a point - living under rule by foreigners does require a certain swallowing of pride, even if youre glad the foreigners came - theres less swallowing of pride involved if the interim govt is authorized by the an international body, EVEN if the international body is one whose connivance at the old dictatorship iraqis resent.
2. Easier chance of getting several thousand more third world troops, whose nominal role will be to guard the UN facility in Iraq. Knockem all you want, every little bit helps.
3. More support from NATO etc in training the new Iraqi forces.
4. More pressure to write off Iraqi debts
5. Easier to dismantle oil for food.
6. Easier to apply pressure nations allowing transit of terrorists into Iraq.
7. Eases political pressures on allies - Blair, Berlusconi, Howard.

And it seems to be we didnt give up anything to get this. Win all around. Hats off to Dubya.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-06-08 1:47:32 PM  

#16  Do you think its Bush's or perhaps Colin Powell's?

Anything Powell tries has to be run by the boss, so as far as I'm concerned, the buck stops with GWB. Powell can be excused simply for being a member of the State Dept., as peaceful diplomacy is usually their tack. But the person in charge needs to put a check on things taken to excess, and constantly trying to get UN approval for everything we do is a fine example of it.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-06-08 1:04:16 PM  

#15  "is it too much to ask for someone with a clue at the NSC or Pentagon to make some snarky anonymous comments about what an offensive charade this UNSC silliness is and how all that matters is the coalition and its Iraqi allies prevailing in establishing order?"

Those folks are all too busy getting real work done.
Posted by: Classical_Liberal   2004-06-08 11:58:48 AM  

#14  "My feeling is we have found a compromise."

Standby for cutlery in the lumbar.
Posted by: Zpaz   2004-06-08 11:35:23 AM  

#13  B-a-r #12: Do you think its Bush's or perhaps Colin Powell's? "No, boss, really. I can do it this time. Trust me..."
Posted by: eLarson   2004-06-08 10:56:27 AM  

#12  GWB needs to get over this UN fetish. It's worthless and it's corrupt, and the sooner we wash our hands of that organization, the better.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-06-08 10:39:03 AM  

#11  France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said "there are a lot of improvements" and "the text is going in the right direction now." "I think we have reached a stage where the resolution has a very good text," Germany's U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said.

...making the resolution absolutely suspect in my book.
Posted by: jules 187   2004-06-08 9:27:59 AM  

#10  This one's for you, DBT.
Posted by: BMN   2004-06-08 9:23:19 AM  

#9  The resolution is needed in order to let the interim government function with international recognition. For instance, it allows Iraq to seat its new UN representative and to work towards shutting down the Oil for Food scam.
Posted by: rkb   2004-06-08 9:15:11 AM  

#8  Generally speaking, a successor government is bound by the predecessor's treaties and contracts, but IIRC there is a doctrine of "odious debt" which allows a liberated country to repudiate the obligations of its deposed tyrant.

On the other hand, if Iraq stiffs the Axis of Weasels, what're they gonna do, mount a punitive expedition? Impose sanctions? Seethe all over the kitchen floor?
Posted by: Mike   2004-06-08 8:44:51 AM  

#7  Election years are a bitch. So much lip service and attention wasted on such obvious perpetual stupidity - here so clearly personified by the UN-addicted and utterly corrupt sufferers of America-envy.

Willpower, folks, don't fade or falter and try not to snipe - even Powell is playing his part and serves at the President's pleasure. There are a lot of balls in the air and, if we keep our spirit and stay on-course, Phil_B's assertion will prove dead solid perfect. One dump-truck full of Gordian Knots at a time...
Posted by: .com   2004-06-08 4:07:45 AM  

#6  Q: If the resolution is not passed what changes?

A: Precisely nothing.

That ladies and gentlemen is all you need to know.
Posted by: Phil B   2004-06-08 3:10:21 AM  

#5  Nice job, Steve. As one of your pithy comments implied, since Iraq is to be gloriously, finally, fully, openly, multilateraly-institutionally, French-ly, sovereign -- it can proceed to negotiate whatever deal or arrangements it pleases with the US. The status of forces agreement with the interim govt. was always going to be the tricky part of the deal, and that hasn't changed. Though early indications are of an Iraqi interim crew with a clue, and a backbone, which may make it easier.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm so past fed up with the Emperor's New Clothes operation concerning the UN and "international support" in Iraq. All this UNSC nonsense, all the G-8 posturing to come -- has virtually no impact on anything in Iraq. That is entirely the result of US/coalition will and power and sacrifice, and Iraqi behavior (good guys and bad guys), with a dash of foreign intrigue and AQ lunatics thrown in for spice. Since we get about 25 idiotic anti-administration "off the record" comments per week (typically from State and CIA folks who have no business holding adult jobs), is it too much to ask for someone with a clue at the NSC or Pentagon to make some snarky anonymous comments about what an offensive charade this UNSC silliness is and how all that matters is the coalition and its Iraqi allies prevailing in establishing order?
Posted by: Verlaine   2004-06-08 2:50:03 AM  

#4  Why do the French diplomats get their rocks off on creating such high-falutin' language in these resolutions that mean absolutely nothing?
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-06-08 2:48:42 AM  

#3  I don't see how the french should be owed anything by Iraq. They did business with sodom, that benefitted only sodom and his pathetic sons. The Iraqi people didn't benefit one iota by any deals between sodom and the cowardly french. They could take sodom to Judge Judy, I guess.
Posted by: Halfass Pete   2004-06-08 2:42:00 AM  

#2  
It also reaffirmed the right of Iraqis to "exercise full authority and control over their financial and natural resources."
E.g., default on their Froggie debts ASAP.
Posted by: someone   2004-06-08 2:23:49 AM  

#1  Anti-Christ Watch:
http://www.esquilax.com/baywatch/index.shtml

LOL
Posted by: Dog Bites Trolls   2004-06-08 2:22:22 AM  

00:00