Security Council Unanimously Backs Revised Iraq Resolution

[strandinthewind]

The most interesting line to me:

The resolution also puts the new Iraqi leaders in charge of oil and gas revenues.


Here is the article
________________________________________________________

Security Council Unanimously Backs Revised Iraq Resolution

June 8, 2004
By WARREN HOGE

UNITED NATIONS, June 8 - The Security Council was expected to vote unanimously late today in favor of an American-British resolution to end the formal occupation of Iraq on June 30 and transfer "full sovereignty" to an Iraqi interim government.

In addition to giving international legitimacy to the new caretaker government, the resolution authorizes an American-led multinational force, now at 160,000 troops, to use "all necessary measures" in "partnership" with Iraqi forces to bring peace. It also defines the United Nations role in post-transition Iraq.

The vote will arm President Bush with a major diplomatic success as he gathers with leaders of eight world powers for a summit at Sea Island, Ga..

"There were some who said we'd never get one, and it looks like, if things go well, it will be a unanimous vote, thereby saying to the world that members of the Security Council are interested in working together to make sure that Iraq is free and peaceful and democratic," Mr. Bush said at a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at the Sea Island summit.

A year after the invasion of Iraq caused bitter division on the Security Council, Mr. Bush will now be able to cite support for the resolution from key council countries like France, Germany and Russia that were vigorously opposed to the American campaign.

A number of the Security Council countries that had faulted the United States for disdaining the United Nations before the war praised it for its willingness to accept suggestions and revisions in the negotiations that ended
Monday night.

Gunter Pleuger, the German ambassador, said the United States and Britain, co-sponsors of the resolution, had been "very flexible and very cooperative."

"It will be a unanimous vote," said Jean Marc de la Sabliere, ambassador of France, which had been the most demanding of the council members in seeking changes in the text, which went through four revisions in two weeks.

The Algerian ambassador, Abdallah Baali, the only Arab nation on the council, said today that the resolution was "the best we could get under the circumstances."

John D. Negroponte, the United States ambassador, who is going to Baghdad soon as the United States envoy there, said, "We have made a major effort to take into account the comments that have been made by various delegations, and we think it is an excellent resolution."

The latest adjustment was made today to meet a French and German demand that the relationship between Iraqi troops and the American-led forces - outlined in letters annexed to the measure - be spelled out in the measure itself.

The letters, one from Iyad Allawi, the prime minister of the interim Iraqi government, and the other from Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, describe a partnership between Iraqi forces and the United States command "on the full range of fundamental security and police issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations."

Mr. Negroponte said that, though he believed the letters spoke for themselves, the United States had agreed to incorporate a "summary paragraph" of what they say into the resolution.

"The new text reflects our concern, it meets 90 percent of our concern, and I think we can live with that," said Mr. Pleuger, the German ambassador, who also predicted unanimous approval.

Ambassador Heraldo Munoz of Chile said the final text reflected suggestions put forth by his country, Spain and Brazil that the resolution state that all forces pledge to observe international human rights laws.

"I am thinking about the men and women in the streets of Iraq who want to see in every paragraph the fact that we are truly transferring genuine sovereignty," Mr. Munoz said. "It must be unambiguous in every paragraph."

In Georgia, Mr. Bush seemed to acknowledge that the resolution would not necessarily mean that allies will send more troops to Iraq, but he nevertheless seemed pleased with the final outcome.

"I expect nations to contribute as they see fit," he said. "But of course the key to long-term security in Iraq is for all of us to work together to train Iraqi troops to handle their own security measures. And that's precisely what we are doing on the ground and we will work with other nations to do as well."

The resolution calls for elections no later than January 31, 2005, to choose a national assembly that will draw up a permanent constitution aimed at holding direct elections for a full-term government a year later.

The resolution also puts the new Iraqi leaders in charge of oil and gas revenues.

In an open meeting before the closed afternoon session Monday, Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, reported on his effort, just completed, to help appoint the members of the new caretaker government. He said that its first mission would be to gain the support of people who have opposed the American occupation.

"It will need to reach out to those who have been vocal critics of this past year's process and engage them in dialogue," Brahimi said. "It will need to resist the temptation to characterize all who have opposed the occupation as terrorists and bitter-enders."

Meanwhile, this draft of the resolution was angering Kurds who wanted the Iraqi interim constitution mentioned in it, as it was in earlier drafts.

Kurds want the interim constitution mentioned because it gives the them the power to veto any version of a permanent constitution that they feel encroaches on their autonomy.

"It is the agreement on this," said the head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, Masoud Barzani, referring to the constitution, "that led the people of Kurdistan to agree to remain within the framework of Iraq. These persons
who call for the rejection of the interim constitution will alone bear responsibility for the consequences."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/in...be717ea79627ab

[strandinthewind]

Ah - no response for this victory for W from the far left. Hmmmmmmm - silence = defeat

I sure am glad W is directly benefiting from those oil revenues now becuase the Iraqi's get them back on three weeks

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Ah - no response for this victory for W from the far left. Hmmmmmmm - silence = defeat

Not at all. I'm reserving comment until I see it act out as described, which I guarantee you it won't. And never will Halliburton have it's claws pried off the Iraqi oil, never.

This is just more **** like the so-called sovereignty that isn't sovereignty.

[gldstwmn]

This is what should have been done in the first place. 800 Americans would still be alive. Bush is losing. Bad. He had no choice. As for the oil reserves? We'll see.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

This is what should have been done in the first place. 800 Americans would still be alive. Bush is losing. Bad. He had no choice. As for the oil reserves? We'll see.

Yep - ITA - we shoulf have invaded until we had this set up. Well we had Chalibi - opps not anymore

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yep - ITA - we shoulf have invaded until we had this set up. Well we had Chalibi - opps not anymore

Don't you mean a crooked bank robber? It really says a lot about this admin. when they put faith in that schmuck.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Don't you mean a crooked bank robber? It really says a lot about this admin. when they put faith in that schmuck.

esp. when the CIA and just about every other Fed. Agency said not to. MF-ers

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

esp. when the CIA and just about every other Fed. Agency said not to. MF-ers

It just lends credence to the theory that knew all the intel was wrong. They chose Chalabi for the fall guy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

It just lends credence to the theory that knew all the intel was wrong. They chose Chalabi for the fall guy.

and Tenet in some twisted way

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yep - ITA - we shoulf have invaded until we had this set up. Well we had Chalibi - opps not anymore

'

Wow. You said "invaded." No, we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

'

Wow. You said "invaded." No, we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place.

We totally invaded Iraq. I have no beef saying that. My only beef is when people say the whole WMD thing was made up by W. I think the evidence does not support that because so many other people thought SH had them as well. W did, however, make the exigent stuff up or he at least put it forth as true when he knew it was wrong a la the Niger yellow cake.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

and Tenet in some twisted way

That one's going to come back and haunt him.