News & Politics - Security Council, In A 15-0 Vote, Backs Measure On Iraq Turnover

Arch-Rival · 06-09-2004, 12:18 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/in...09NATI.html?hp

Quote:

Security Council, in a 15-0 Vote, Backs Measure on Iraq Turnover

By WARREN HOGE
Published: June 9, 2004

UNITED NATIONS, June 8 � The Security Council voted unanimously on Tuesday in favor of an American and British resolution to end the formal occupation of Iraq on June 30 and transfer "full sovereignty" to an interim Iraqi government.

Along with giving international legitimacy to the caretaker government and outlining the United Nations' role in a post-June 30 Iraq, the measure authorized an American-led multinational force, now at 160,000 troops, to use "all necessary measures" in "partnership" with Iraqi forces to bring peace.

The 15-to-0 vote on the measure, co-sponsored by the United States and Britain, gave President Bush a major diplomatic win as he gathered with leaders of the Group of 8 industrialized powers for a summit meeting at Sea Island, Ga.

It provided stark contrast with the bitter division that arose at the Security Council last year over the American campaign in Iraq. "Today we are united on Iraq," said Lauro L. Baja Jr. of the Philippines, the Security Council president. "Yesterday we were divided on Iraq."

It also enabled the United States to cite support for its program to stabilize Iraq from Council countries like France, Germany and Russia that were vigorously opposed to American military action there.

John D. Negroponte, the American ambassador to the United Nations who is to become the United States envoy in Baghdad, said the vote "is a vivid demonstration of broad, international support for, and I quote from the text, `a federal, democratic, pluralist and unified Iraq in which there is full respect for political and human rights.' "

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the vote showed the international community was "coming together again to support the Iraqi people."

The Iraqi people, however, are not themselves unified; Kurds in particular fear the resolution may leave the Shiite majority too much power.

A number of the Security Council countries which had faulted the United States for disdaining the United Nations before the war praised it on Tuesday for its willingness to accept suggestions and revisions in the five weeks of negotiations over the draft.

Gunter Pleuger, the German ambassador, said the United States and Britain had shown a welcome "flexible and constructive approach."

While the resolution put an international stamp on the American-led military force in Iraq, American diplomats said they had reined in their earlier hope that it might attract more nations to contribute troops.

Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said Monday that the United States no longer expected to draw in additional troops but that it did hope that the resolution would persuade countries with military forces already there not to remove or reduce them.

There were indications, however, that countries with no disposition to join the multinational force might be drawn to a separate military force to protect United Nations personnel that is called for in the resolution.

Fred Eckhard, the spokesman for Secretary General Kofi Annan, said Tuesday that three or four nations that do not now have troops in Iraq had signaled their willingness to join the separate force, which is estimated to number 4,000 soldiers.

In passages that were the most contested during the last two weeks in which there were four reworkings of the text, the resolution empowered an American-led multinational force to "take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq," but strictly in "security partnership" with the Iraqi interim government.

The Iraqi military and police, the measure said, would be under Iraqi commanders, and American commanders would have to work in "full partnership" and "close coordination and consultation" with them.

France and Germany had pressed for language giving the Iraqis a veto over participation in combat operations that they objected to, but in the end the two nations settled for an expanded paragraph that honored the Iraqis' right to take part in all security decisions "including policy on sensitive offensive operations." The reference was to military operations like those in Falluja and Najaf where Iraqis were unwilling to join allied troops in fighting.

Those words emerged first in letters that were introduced in debate on Sunday and adopted Tuesday as amendments to the resolution.

The letters, one from Iyad Allawi, the prime minister of the interim government, and the other from Mr. Powell, described the steps the two governments meant to take to solidify the partnership between Iraqi forces and the American command. Dr. Allawi said he would create and lead a new security ministerial committee to help coordinate decision-making at "sensitive" moments.

The resolution says the American-led multinational force is in Iraq at the request and with the consent of the Iraqi interim government, and it gives the government the right to order the force's withdrawal. Both Dr. Allawi and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who addressed the Council last week, said they wanted the foreign troops to stay.

The resolution calls for elections no later than Jan. 31, 2005, to choose a national assembly to draw up a permanent constitution that would mandate direct elections for a full-term government by Dec. 31, 2005.

In another move intended to broaden Iraq's politics, the resolution calls for a national conference of political, religious and tribal representatives to select a consultative council to advise the interim government. This idea was suggested by the United Nations special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, who said he imagined a gathering of as many as 1,000 people, to take place in mid-July.

Kurdish leaders had asked the United States to include in the resolution a guarantee of Kurdish rights, but American officials rejected the request after it was strongly opposed by prominent Shiites. The absence of such a guarantee threatened to create a serious split between the Kurds and the new Iraqi government.

In its security sections, the resolution said the mandate for the multinational force would be reviewed a year from now, or sooner if the government to be elected in January seeks a review.

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

The United Nations will advise the Iraqis on the development of civil and social services, the coordination of relief and reconstruction efforts, and the protection of human rights.

It will help the Iraqis plan a census, set up elections and draft a constitution. Carina Perelli, head of the United Nations electoral assistance division, has developed the plans for elections in January 2005, and oversaw the appointment last week of a new electoral commission.

SuperDeluxe · 06-09-2004, 07:00 AM

Good news.

Gives more validity/backing to a future democratic iraqi state

n e r b l e · 06-09-2004, 07:57 AM

yeah, it seems like the US wants to hand the country back to it's people asap. which is weird since i heard so much about this war being b/c of oil...

mh67511 · 06-11-2004, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by n e r b l e
yeah, it seems like the US wants to hand the country back to it's people asap. which is weird since i heard so much about this war being b/c of oil...

It is. That's why gas prices are so high lately...

SuperDeluxe · 06-11-2004, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mh67511
It is. That's why gas prices are so high lately...

Gas prices are high because Opec has us by the gonads.

Once Iraq can start selling their oil, Opec might have problems.

Shantal · 06-11-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by n e r b l e
yeah, it seems like the US wants to hand the country back to it's people asap. which is weird since i heard so much about this war being b/c of oil...

They don't need to stay in Iraq to have the oil. The rights for the oil were sold from the American president to american companies shortly after the war started. They already own the oil, why would they want to stay any longer there?

idork · 06-11-2004, 06:50 PM

Does the word Halliburton ring a bell for you, nerble?

SuperDeluxe · 06-11-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by idork
Does the word Halliburton ring a bell for you, nerble?

I thought the US removed halliburton from main contractor status because liberals whined about it?

mh67511 · 06-11-2004, 07:44 PM

Someone just needs to invent a damn car that runs on salt water. Now there is a resource we should start tapping

.

ceilirose · 06-12-2004, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperDeluxe
I thought the US removed halliburton from main contractor status because liberals whined about it?

That's funny...I thought the Pentagon was investigating them because of potential fraud charges. Who is in charge of the Pentagon - isn't it that whiny liberal Rumsfeld? Wait..no he's a neo-con.

Last time I looked the Republicans had control of all three branches of the Government. Nice try but to blame those 'whiney liberals' doesn't cut it. If Halliburton is committing fraud they're doing it with those tax dollars the Conservatives hate to part with... I'd think that they would be the ones who would be most concerned. Hmm but maybe they'd all like to look the other way?

StellaSlight · 06-12-2004, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by n e r b l e
yeah, it seems like the US wants to hand the country back to it's people asap. which is weird since i heard so much about this war being b/c of oil...

Well, as Shantal as said it well, they already own the oil infrastructures. So in the twenty/thirty years to come, when the fires extinguish and those infrastructures are exploitable again, every time Iraqis will want to pump oil for their own use, they will have to PAY the Americans to have acces to their own oil. Fair, isn't it?
So now that they're all messed up in Iraq, and the situation is worse than ever, why would you want the US to remain there? Why do you think Bush's been pleading with the UN to get a resolution on Iraq that would free him from his dirty job there?

***Jerry D*** · 06-12-2004, 07:18 PM

I think that Iraq has turned into a Vietnam-like quagmire for Bush, and so I�m sure he does want to cut back our direct involvement there, especially as the election looms near. I personally still feel that we shouldn�t have gone into Iraq in the first place, and as far as I�m concerned, the sooner we get out of there, the better.

n e r b l e · 06-14-2004, 08:03 PM

haliburton was contracted by the clinton admin too in case you forgot.

also jerry, do you think sadaam should still be in power?

ceilirose · 06-15-2004, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by n e r b l e
haliburton was contracted by the clinton admin too in case you forgot.

LOL..to quote 'The Gipper', "there you go again" bringing up Clinton in an argument that has nothing at all to do with him. Do the Conservatives feel that it legitimizes your position to always compare Bush to Clinton?

SuperDeluxe · 06-15-2004, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ceilirose
. Do the Conservatives feel that it legitimizes your position to always compare Bush to Clinton?

Well it should, since the liberals we're no where to be found when that stuff was blowing up.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Security Council, In A 15-0 Vote, Backs Measure On Iraq Turnover