WAR: New US/UK Draft Resolution:Unacceptable ?

The UK and U.S have submitted yet another draft UN resolution concerning Iraq.The revised details of the draft seem to show just how wide the gap between the coalitions position and that of other UN security council members and even the newly proposed Iraqi government.


As I mentioned in this story the two main contentious points are the mandate for military presence and the ultimate political control of military operations in Iraq.On the first point the first draft would have allowed coalition troops to remain in Iraq until "atleast" the 30th June 2005,this could not be endorsed by France,Russia,and China who wanted a specific date for coalition troop withdrawal.This has been revised in this new second draft to troop withdrawal in 2006.When this is viewed in the context of the wish of the members of the new Iraqi government for troop withdrawal by the end of this year and by the other veto wielding security council member's wish that troop withdrawal should be complete by no later than 30th June 2005 we can easily see that further negotiations on this issue are needed.

The second point, which was not really addressed in the first draft,concerns the Iraqi governments ability to veto any future contraversial military operations such as that which took place in Fullujah this does not detract from the ability of the U.S military to defend themselves.The second draft guarentees that the new Iraqi government has political control over it's own Iraqi troops and police.To be honest this was never really the issue and it's hard to see how this can be accepted also.

While watching the BBC news this morning any viewer would have thought that a great step towards a UN resolution had been taken with the publication of this draft resolution,when infact the positions appear to be just as intractable as before.The media and diplomats seem to be keeping these negotiations very low key and is it any wonder? No one but no one wants a repeat of the debacle that accompanied the negotiations of the failed UN resolution to authorise the invasion of Iraq last year.That said the same incompatable philosophies and opposite forces that scuppered international co-operation last year are clearly at work today.

This resolution,if passed,would legally end the occupation status of Iraq and thus change the status of coalition forces from occupiers (with all the legal responsibility that that entails) to invited guests.

So,what appears certain is that this draft is unacceptable and there will be growing pressure in the run up to the 30th June for an acceptable draft to be presented to the UN.One unpredicted factor has been the resignation of the old Iraqi governing council in favour of the new Iraqi administration led by Ghazi Yawer which will give Iraqis a bigger say in the UN negotiations.A resolution still seems likely however but it seems certain to name 30th June 2005 as the date for troop withdrawal and a guarentee of some form of consultation between coalition forces and the Iraqi executive in the event of further offensive operations in the future.

The extra deployment of 5,000 British troops to take over a wider area of southern Iraq recently vacated by Spain,including Najaf, is dependent on this resolution.Deployment without it would be political suicide for Tony Blair without it.

BBC

CNN

Al Jazeera

[Edited on 2-6-2004 by John bull 1]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

Originally posted by John bull 1
The extra deployment of 5,000 British troops to take over a wider area of southern Iraq recently vacated by Spain,including Najaf, is dependent on this resolution.Deployment without it would be political suicide for Tony Blair without it.

Where did you get this comment from? There has been nothing from the media or analysts that state UK troop deployment is reliant on the forthcoming resolution.
Everything that I have seen or heard points to the troops being supplied if they are needed and nothing more. Politically, there has been very little argument over this.