posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 04:10 AM
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.
[Edited on 2-6-2004 by John bull 1]
[Edited on 3-6-2004 by SkepticOverlord]