UN Resolution on Iraq

news.bbc.co.uk...

The US will today (1400GMT) put forward a resolution to the UN concerning the future of Iraq.
The resolution is sponsored by the UK, Spain and (interestingly (Cameroon).


There is much interesting reading in the text of this draft. In particular Paragraph 19 which states:

19. CALLS UPON Member States to prevent the transit of terrorists to Iraq, arms for terrorists, and financing that would support terrorists, and emphasises the importance of strengthening the co-operation of the countries of the region, particularly neighbours of Iraq, in this regard.


This could be viewed as a warning to Syria and Iran. Technically, if there is proof that terrorists are coming in from these states, they will be in breach of the resolution.

It seems that although this resolution is mainly aimed at getting some sort of security and stability in place in Iraq, it is also a warning to those other nations on the Axis of Evil list.

Looks like it will pass with no objection.

story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20031016/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_031016115264

(CNN) -- The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to adopt the U.S.-backed Resolution 1511, which advocates additional troops and money to support the stabilization of Iraq.

It just did...

Excellent timing! Synchronicity at its best..

Hmmm, this resolution doesn't call for any military or economic support in Iraq from other UN countries.

Maybe that;s why it passed so easily.

news.ft.com.../StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059480644171&p=1012571727088

The German Chancellor on Thursday told a news conference in Brussels after conferring in a three-way telephone conference with his French and Russian counterparts that they had agreed to back the US resolution because it had showed some progress and for the sake of Security Council unity.

But he added: "The progress in our view is still not an adequate response to the situation on the ground in Iraq, and on those grounds, we do not see ourselves in a position to play a military role there...or to make a further material contribution beyond what has already been agreed.""

You're correct, it only "urges" members to provide military support, but "resolves" that support include humanitarian relief, economic reconstruction, etc.

Here's part of the text:

8. RESOLVES that the United Nations, acting through the Secretary-General, his Special Representative, and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq, should strengthen its vital role in Iraq, including by providing humanitarian relief, promoting the economic reconstruction of and conditions for sustainable development in Iraq, and advancing efforts to restore and establish national and local institutions for representative government:

14. URGES Member States to contribute assistance under this United Nations mandate, including military forces, to the multinational force referred to in paragraph 13 above;

www.cnn.com...

It's still better than nothing....and sets the stage for the reconstruction contracting bids, etc. which must simply be making France and Germany salivate right about now... No wonder it passed so easily....

It should also be noted that Syria is sitting on the Security Council at this time and that it also voted for the Resolution to be passed.

I guess this could be counted as a diplomatic victory for the US.

Diplomatic victory for US?

No, highly improbable, given current circumstances, for some years.

In fact, I'm not sure I use 'diplomatic' and 'victory' together, it connotes a win/lose adversarial approach that is part of the problem for too many analysts and regressives.

UN Security Council common sense?

Yes.




kukla




No Segway required.

Maybe you don't view it personally as a diplomatic victory but most of the world will.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The fact remains that the US very nearly failed in getting this resolution and the fact that Germany, Russia and France caved in (yes, they caved in) after this week's tough talk, could and probably will, be construed as a victory.

Circumstances and results would have been a lot more difficult to obtain had the resolution failed.
This opens the door to foreign troops entering Iraq and a truly international force being established whilst the US retains overall control.

"The resolution confirms that for the time being the Coalition Provisional Authority will remain the over-arching power in Iraq, although it stresses that the transfer of sovereignty and government back to the Iraqi people will happen as soon as practicable."


It will be particularly interesting to view this transfer of sovereignty in light of the inherent criminality in a number of Iraq-specific presidential EO's signed by Bush during 2003. Ticking timebombs aplenty, for Bush, Cheney and crony capitalism.

This watered-down "resolution" does nothing more than recognize the CPA and give them some status within the U.N. Of course, this does provide political cover for those states that have been "sitting on the fence" regarding military assistance.

There is nothing binding in this resolution, which made its passing so easy for the U.S. Reaffirm, welcome, support, invites, requests...

Makes for nice headlines, but its nothing more than icing on Rove's PR poundcake.

The fall is coming... Were they ready for it?

Unfortunately, Masked, I disagree with you.

For the Bush administration, any defeats now they suffer will be carried on to the next president, its too late to reverse anything now.

I dont get any warm and fuzzy feelings about this passing of this UN resolution. What I see is another gain for the EU in the long run, while we whither away into nothing.

Sorry, Masked, But PNAC is not the big threat you think it is, it has already faltered considerably. Its hardly the bioggest of my global worries. I have worse things I see on the horizon.

Skadi

I have no idea on what points you are disagreeing with me, but disagree to your heart's content!