WP: U.S. Bends to France, Russia on U.N. Iraq Resolution

[kskiska]

Interim Government Will Be Allowed to Opt Out of U.S.-Led Offenses, Hold International Conference

By Robin Wright and Dana Milbank

In a major push to win international backing before the Group of Eight summit begins, the United States made several last-minute concessions to incorporate French and Russian demands in a proposed United Nations resolution on Iraq. It should win unanimous support in a Security Council vote today, U.N. diplomats predicted.

Passage would be a pivotal victory for the Bush administration as it ends a 14-month occupation of Iraq -- and be a stark contrast to the divisions and diplomatic disarray at the world body when the United States failed last year to win U.N. backing for a resolution authorizing military intervention in Iraq.

The resolution is critical for Iraq, because it bestows international legitimacy on the new government 22 days before the occupation ends. With the U.N. vote today, U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte said, Iraq will soon begin "a new phase in the political history, the full restoration of sovereignty and authority over Iraq's own affairs."

Even France, the most demanding party in the U.N. debate, sounded pleased with the resolution after both major and minor modifications yesterday. "It's much improved. . . . Things are going in the right direction," said French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere. "We're almost finished."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23393-2004Jun7.html

[cal04]

1. Last-Minute Change to Resolution Wins Support

Britain and the United States’ last-minute addition to their Iraq resolution appears to have satisfied French and German demands to spell out Iraq’s “security partnership” with US-led forces.
US Ambassador John Negroponte said he expects the Security Council to approve the resolution this afternoon, and council diplomats said the vote could be unanimous. “We think this is an excellent resolution. It marks the fact that Iraq is entering into a new political phase, one where it is reasserting its full sovereignty,” Mr Negroponte said.

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 US-led force. A revised draft sent to the 15-member Security Council yesterday – the fourth in two weeks – did not include any of these proposals.

But during closed-door consultations, 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 American 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.”

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.”While the new language doesn’t mention an Iraqi veto, France’s UN. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said: “There are a lot of improvements ... the text is going in the right direction now.” Germany’s UN Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said: “The French amendment was much clearer, but the new text reflects our concerns ... and we can live with that.”
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3033310

[teryang]

2. Looks like European appeasement to me

They give legitimacy to an unlawful course of events and call it the end of the occupation. This is collective self delusion.

Perhaps as some suggest European opposition to the war was just a facade.

[Gloria]

4. To repeat from another thread, a U.N. official in Baghdad yesterday

said on the BBC World Service that he feared that the U.N. would wind up endorsing an illegitimate government...and that if things soured, it would be very bad indeed....

[Capt_Nemo]

6. not appeasement, just bargaining for oil contracts...

I wasn't expecting anything else.

[teryang]

8. There you go

"Oil in our time."

[Capt_Nemo]

10. remember Turkey, right before the war?

want us to turn a blind eye to your criminal endeavours? Then you'll
better come up with the goods.

No one is passing blank checks to the US anymore. They (other UNSC members) just learned the easy way to deal with mobsters...

[tlcandie]

3. End of occupation .. like Mission Accomplished?

I thought so ... :puke:

[Mechatanketra]

5. 'Peace in our time', I fear.

As opposed to actual peace any time soon.

[dusty64]

7. This is the angle that

won't be told by our corporate press. My local rag has the story as a complete and total victory of our regime, hmmmm.

[Just Me]

9. It's difficult for me to imagine the Bush Regime bending to anything,...

,...without breaking something.:bounce:

But, ya' never know! :crazy: