U.S. proposes U.N. resolution giving 1-year mandate in Iraq

[Goldmund]

U.S. proposes U.N. resolution giving multinational force 1-year mandate in Iraq after June 30 handover, U.N. official says. Details soon.

(blurb on top of cnn.com)

OnEdit: thanks to maddezmom for the link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20040524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq

UNITED NATIONS - The United States and Britain presented a new U.N. resolution Monday that would transfer "governing authority" in Iraq (news - web sites) to a sovereign interim government by June 30 and authorize a multinational force to maintain peace with Iraq consent.


The draft resolution would give the new Iraqi government the right to review the mandate of the multinational force and control over its oil and gas resources and a fund now in the hands of the United States and Britain where oil revenue has been deposited.


Declaring their determination for a new start for Iraq, the United States and Britain state clearly in the resolution that by June 30, their occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will "cease to exist." It makes no mention, however, of the Iraqi Governing Council.


The resolution was formally introduced at a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council, which has held three informal sessions to discuss critical elements needed in a blueprint for post-occupation Iraq.

[swag]

1. Wow, that gives the multinational force a little over a month

to get there.

I seriously doubt the UN will go for it.

Is this shit gonna be in Bush's big speech tonight?

[Goldmund]

2. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking

a little smoke an mirrors to slow down the free fall...

[daleo]

35. The multi-national force is the U.S./U.K force already there

They might put on different armbands or something, though.

The U.N. should tell Bush to pound sand, although I fear that they might just go for some goofball scheme. I hope not, as it would just legitimize the U.S./U.K. aggression, and they will take that as a blank cheque for the next war.

[CulturalNomad]

3. Let me get this right - the Blue Helmets will be in the front line and

US troops will retreat but still remain in Iraq en masse.....hmmmmm sounds good for Bush, bad for UN Peacekeepers (mostly fm 3rs world countries I expect) and really no difference for Iraqis. All hail the fundamentalists in the White House..

[swag]

6. On To Syria!

[maddezmom]

9. nah...US Military still has the power, it's the same old same old

~snip~
Jones Parry said the force would operate "with the consent, in consultation and in partnership" with the Iraqi caretaker government, which has yet to be formed.


He said the resolution also made clear that "in the political process that will now ensue, (the) United Nations (news - web sites) will have a leading role -- circumstances permitting, of course, on the ground."

~snip~
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1515&ncid=1515&e=1&u=/afp/20040524/wl_mideast_afp/un_iraq_us_britain_draft_council_040524143159

[ze_dscherman]

11. Also, occupation troops can't be prosecuted by Iraqis

"In terms of security, the official said, the MNF force will have a regular "status of forces" agreement with the Iraqi government so that it does not fall under local law. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3741303.stm

[maddezmom]

4. link: U.S., Britain Present Iraq Resolution

UNITED NATIONS - The United States and Britain presented a new U.N. resolution Monday that would transfer "governing authority" in Iraq (news - web sites) to a sovereign interim government by June 30 and authorize a multinational force to maintain peace with Iraq consent.


The draft resolution would give the new Iraqi government the right to review the mandate of the multinational force and control over its oil and gas resources and a fund now in the hands of the United States and Britain where oil revenue has been deposited.


Declaring their determination for a new start for Iraq, the United States and Britain state clearly in the resolution that by June 30, their occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will "cease to exist." It makes no mention, however, of the Iraqi Governing Council.


The resolution was formally introduced at a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council, which has held three informal sessions to discuss critical elements needed in a blueprint for post-occupation Iraq.
~snip~

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20040524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq

[Goldmund]

5. Thanks, I'll put it in the original post

[Just Me]

8. The substance is dependent upon the legitimacy of the,...

,..."sovereign interim government". So, anyone here believe that the Busholinis are going to appoint a "sovereign interim goverment" that has a flavor of legitimacy?

Nope? Yeah, me either. Same ole' manipulative control-freakish stuff. No one trusts the Busholinis,...no one should.

[maddezmom]

7. another link: UN resolution will give full sovereignty: Britain

~snip~
It underlines clearly that all sovereignty will be returned to the Iraqis, that the interim Iraqi government will assume total responsibility for its own sovereignty," he told reporters Monday before the council met to discuss the text.


The resolution, the rough outlines of which were thrashed out in weeks of consulations with the council, also authorises the US-led multinational force to stay in Iraq after the June 30 handover of power, he said.


Jones Parry said the force would operate "with the consent, in consultation and in partnership" with the Iraqi caretaker government, which has yet to be formed.


He said the resolution also made clear that "in the political process that will now ensue, (the) United Nations (news - web sites) will have a leading role -- circumstances permitting, of course, on the ground."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1515&ncid=1515&e=1&u=/afp/20040524/wl_mideast_afp/un_iraq_us_britain_draft_council_040524143159

[ze_dscherman]

10. Dubious clauses

"The official said an enhanced role for the UN would be subject to a "circumstances permitting" clause, which means the UN will only be there if security is good.

Member states might be called on to provide soldiers for a new force to protect UN personnel, he said.

In terms of security, the official said, the MNF force will have a regular "status of forces" agreement with the Iraqi government so that it does not fall under local law. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3741303.stm

[Zhade]

36. In other words: we'll stay and let the UN into Iraq when it's safe.

Which, of course, it will never be, as long as the USUK forces are there - especially since we'll be given a free hand to commit even more war crimes!

Vicious cycle.

I've said it before: we will either leave the country completely of our own accord, soon, or we will be driven out as we were in Viet Nam. It is inevitable. Our forces total one-half of one percent of the total population of Iraq. We'll never "win the peace".

Our efforts are doomed, and we shouldn't have even gone into Iraq in the first place.

[Spazito]

12. The Security Council members have to stall this...

by demanding change upon change. bush is over a barrel now and desperately needs the UN to bail him out, now is the time for the UN to make some demands of it's own, imo.

[Don_G]

13. Control Of Their Assets

Or "just" the right to review the control of their resources and the books? I hope they can find a good forensic CPA.

[papau]

14. AFP gives a different spin- and a bit more detail- compared to AP-as usual

UN resolution to be put to vote after Brahimi's report: Britain

LONDON (AFP) - A crucial resolution on Iraq being presented to the United Nations Security Council will most likely be voted on after the UN's envoy to Baghdad reports at the end of this month, Britain said.

While a draft version of the resolution was being put to the Security Council later Monday, the final version was not expected to be debated until Lakhdar Brahimi completed his report, a spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said. <snip>


Britain's UN Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said Monday that the new resolution would give "all sovereignty" to the Iraqi people while also authorising the US-led multinational force to stay in Iraq after the June 30 handover of power. <snip>

"It would also endorse the formation of a sovereign independent government and endorse the timetable of work towards elections on January 31 next year," he added.




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1504&ncid=1504&e=2&u=/afp/20040524/ts_afp/un_iraq_us_britain_draft_040524154205

[Don_G]

16. Here's A Little More Info

All US forces and security will remain under US control.

Link: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2004/05/24/international1115EDT0523.DTL

[maddezmom]

17. and some more: U.N. Iraq Draft Gives No Exit Date for Foreign Force

~snip~
The definition of sovereignty is a contentious issue, with the Bush administration attempting to assure U.N. Security Council members they would not be asked to approve an occupation under another name.


~snip~

But the text is bound to run into criticism by France, Germany, Russia and others. It does not give a definite timetable for deployment of the U.S.-led force and instead calls for a review after a year, which a new Iraqi government can request earlier.


A review, however, would be similar to an open-ended mandate and would not mean the force would leave unless the Security Council, where the United States has veto power, decides it should do so.


The resolution, contrary to expectations, does not give an "opt out" clause that would allow Iraqi troops to refuse a command from the American military. Instead it calls for arrangements "to ensure coordination between the two."

~snip~
more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040524/ts_nm/iraq_un_dc

[maddezmom]

18. seeking a vote in a week or 2? this is just puff for bush* speech todnight

Washington will not seek a vote on the resolution for a week or two, until U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi finishes his work on drawing up the interim Iraqi government due to take power on June 30, a senior U.S. official said.

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. so if the U.N. ever did go in?

Would they be in charge of protecting the private contractors too?

[yellowcanine]

19. "United States and Britain state clearly in the resolution that by June

30, their occupation will end"

I guess that depends on what the meaning of "occupation" is and what the meaning of "end" is.

[Spazito]

20. What they are trying to do, imo...

is simply take away the legal responsibilities that an "occupier" has while continue to occupy Iraq. It is a good thing the UN does not vote on this till after Brahimi tables his report.

[Don_G]

21. Or Give Chimpy Another "Don't Blame Me" Excuse

After his speech tonight and after the resolution is rejected.

[Spazito]

22. I don't think that will float this time....

but, I agree, that will be the meme. The UN needs to hold off on the vote after Brahimi's report, demanding changes to the resolution so that bush doesn't have the "rejection" of the resolution to lean on.

[Don_G]

23. I Don't Think It Will Float Either

But you can bet Rove is going to try like hell to worm his way into another selection process. It's that or the Federal Prison system after the investigations Kerry may ask for next year.

[Spazito]

24. Here is an article that goes into more detail, very interesting...

U.N. Iraq Draft Gives No Exit Date for Foreign Force

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A new U.S.-British drafted U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing sovereignty for an Iraqi caretaker government approves the presence of the U.S.-led force there but sets no date for the troops to leave.

snip

The definition of sovereignty is a contentious issue, with the Bush administration attempting to assure U.N. Security Council members they would not be asked to approve an occupation under another name.

snip

But the text is bound to run into criticism by France, Germany, Russia and others. It does not give a definite timetable for deployment of the U.S.-led force and instead calls for a review after a year, which a new Iraqi government can request earlier.


A review, however, would be similar to an open-ended mandate and would not mean the force would leave unless the Security Council, where the United States has veto power, decides it should do so.


more, lots more

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=nm/iraq_un_dc

[Just Me]

27. Spazito,...I agree with everything you have observed,...

,...and concluded. These "people", the neocons,...they don't play fair or according to common decency or accepted rules. They treat the world and all the people within like a jungle,...and they view themselves as the ultimate (benevolent *LOL*) predators.

I wouldn't give these heartless, cold-blooded, individuals a freakin' inch because they WILL take advantage and they WILL make matters far, far worse.

[David__77]

25. Who would command this force?

Would US soldiers serve under UN auspices?

[Kadie]

26. Reuters - New UN Resolution Gives Broad Powers to U.S. Troops

New UN Resolution Gives Broad Powers to U.S. Troops

Mon May 24, 2004 03:48 PM ET

By Evelyn Leopold and Steve Holland
UNITED NATIONS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and Britain asked U.N. members on Monday to endorse a hand-over of power to a new Iraqi interim government but proposed U.S. troops could "take all measures" to keep order.

The draft U.N. Security Council resolution, which asks for support for a U.S.-led multinational force, however, gives no date for the withdrawal of foreign troops.

It is also silent on the future of U.S. prisons and Iraqi control over its own forces.

An interim government drawn from Iraq's various religious and ethnic communities is expected to be formed in the next week or so, with help from U.N. Iraq envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. No vote is expected until Brahimi reports back to the council.

more... http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5240098

[CHIMO]

28. Horse feathers

Don't see this flying.

The UN has very little respect in Iraq after the ten years of sanctions.

Where are they going to find 150,000 foreign police/army? China or India? Who will pay.
If they are assisted by the US military then they will be seen as a direct extension of the invading force.

Don't see any takers on this.

[yowzayowzayowza]

29. Thatz exactly what * is counting on...

So he can once again blame the wishy-washy international community. The other question on the far end of this is: How much could have been saved had *s proposed concessions been made 15 months ago?

[CHIMO]

30. The Wishy-Wash

International community may have another Rwanda on its slate in the Sudan. If K. Annan and other spokespersons are to be believed they said that they should not allow something like that to happen again. So where are the efforts going to be placed?
You break it you own it or prevent the possible death of 300,000 people?

[nolabels]

31. Yea, but it will work for the * co propaganda machine

And by definition they are "TAKERS"

http://www.iht.com/articles/521208.html
Give Iraqis complete sovereignty

William Pfaff IHT

Saturday, May 22, 2004
Getting out

PARIS The deep confusion that has fallen over the supposed transfer of power in Iraq next month suggests that the best opportunity the United States will ever have to make a constructive exit from that country may be wasted.
(snip)
(snip)
The isolated acts of violence with which the resistance began last year have become organized attacks, accompanied by what, even before the prisoner torture revelations, was becoming massive popular rejection of coalition authority and anger at the United States. If the grant of sovereignty at the end of June is not complete, or is postponed, the resistance will acquire the legitimacy of a national and nationalist movement.
(snip)
(snip)
The White House also must give up the ideas that American corporate investors are going to have a big role in Iraq's economy in the near future, and that the United States will be able to influence oil prices through its leverage over a new Iraqi government. If Washington has economic influence in Iraq in the future, or enjoys its military cooperation, this will have to be earned from a sovereign Iraqi government.
.
The argument that a solution can be found in the partition of Iraq into three entities - Shiite, Sunni and Kurd - making them independent or grouping them in a loose political federation, has been offered by Leslie Gelb, president-emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Peter W. Galbraith, a former ambassador. This, it is said, could make it possible for the United States to withdraw safely
(snip)

[CHIMO]

32. Can't See UN

As a taker.
After Rwanda and Iraq, which occurred under their watch, another catastrophe would send them the way of the League of Nations.(It appears that Sudan has the possibility for 300,000 casualties) One more strike and everyone would see that they can't do anything.

The UN did not create the Iraq situation, other than the sanctions. There are other things on the table besides Iraq. How Iraq is solved, which is a creation of former colonial powers is to be seen. But how can the UN possibly solve the situation. If they try in the present situation then it is doomed to failure.

If Iraq asked the UN to come in, then yes it could work. But that is an election or two away.

[nolabels]

33. I was meaning the *co / Rove machine

Unless you have amnesia, they were trying to get the UN to bend for the invasion, but a few players (for intrinsic reasons mostly) gave the old security council the marks they would veto even if *co could somehow win the vote.

The UN has little credibility in Iraq, but *co has even less. The resolution will never pass without major revisions, which will also not happen.

The are just looking for a new bit for the old horse to bite on

[CHIMO]

34. Thanks for The Compliment

Thought that maybe it was senility.
I re-read the article and didn't see what you see, it seemed ambiguous to me.

However, my take is that if the UN takes this on it will probably be the end of the UN.
The present arrangement of preemptive strikes makes the UN irrelevant. It is not required anymore under these new rules.

[nolabels]

37. Excuse me, I didn't read your post carefully enough also I was not very..

Clear. I get so angry at some of this B.S. that I well you know :argh:

Again please excuse the ignorance and arrogance

The UN seemed done and gone a long time ago to me.

When poppy used it for Gulf War #1 is when I think they went astray (some say it was as early as the Korean War). At any rate we cannot depend on any help from anybody else outside. We all must control our own country first and foremost. We have no excuse

The only thing that is saving the UN now is places like France

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1018/p07s01-wogi.html

Why no UN middle road on Iraq? The world agrees with France
UN members confronted the Security Council this week. Their message: No one backs the US Iraq plan.

By Michael J. Jordan | Special to The Christian Science Monitor
UNITED NATIONS – For a month, the debate over renewing UN weapons inspections of Iraq has essentially been between a US comply-or-else ultimatum and a French go-slow approach aimed at denying Washington a "green light" to use force.

No country has put forth "Plan C," a credible third option.
As other UN member states this week began weighing in, it's becoming clearer why not: The French seem to have consensus support.

"It would be inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter if the Security Council were to authorize the use of military force against Iraq at a time when Iraq has indicated its willingness to abide by the Security Council's resolution," South Africa's UN ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said Wednesday, at the outset of a two-day open forum in which non-Council member states spoke to the body about how to handle Iraq
(snip)