 |
| |
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
:fu:
France, Germany Criticize Iraq Resolution
13 minutes ago
DRESDEN, Germany - The leaders of Germany and France on Thursday criticized a U.S. push for international help in Iraq (news - web sites), saying the United Nations (news - web sites) should guide Iraq's political rebuilding and that more responsibility must be turned over to Iraqi leaders.
The comments from German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac were a response to the United States' proposed U.N. resolution seeking troops and money for Iraq's postwar reconstruction but declining to relinquish political or military control of the country.
Schroeder and Chirac, both adamant opponents of the war in Iraq, said they wanted to see a greater role for the United Nations in guiding the country's reconstruction. Such a role was not included in the draft U.N. resolution circulated by the United States on Wednesday.
"We are naturally ready to study it in the most positive manner," Chirac said. "But we are quite far removed from what we believe is the priority objective, which is the transfer of political responsibility to an Iraqi government as quickly as possible."
Schroeder said the draft resolution had brought "movement" into the diplomacy. But he added: "I agree with the president when he says: Not dynamic enough, not sufficient."
The statements dealt a blow to the proposed U.S. resolution. France is one of five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, a position that gives it veto power over Council actions.
The U.S. resolution was made public Wednesday. The draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, would transform the U.S.-led military force in Iraq into a U.N.-authorized multinational force under a unified command. It would also ask the Iraqi Governing Council to cooperate with the United Nations and U.S. officials in Baghdad to produce a timetable and program for drafting a new constitution and holding democratic elections.
Key provisions in the U.S. draft would:
_ Call on U.N. member states to help train and equip an Iraqi police force.
_ Invite the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council to cooperate with the United Nations and U.S. officials in Baghdad to produce "a timetable and program for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections."
_ Ask the U.N. representative in Iraq to facilitate a "national dialogue and consensus building" to promote the political transition.
_ Ask all U.N. member states and international and regional organizations "to accelerate the provision of substantial financial contributions to support the Iraqi reconstruction effort" and appeal to international financial institutions to take immediate steps to provide a full range of loans and other assistance.
_Call on countries in the region "to prevent the transit of terrorists, arms for terrorists, and financing that would support terrorists."
But Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), who outlined the U.S. proposal at a news conference Wednesday, made clear that "the United States will continue to play a dominant role" both politically and militarily. An American commander would take charge of the multinational force and U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer would keep the top political post, he said.
To council nations that want responsibilities in Iraq to be shared, Powell said, "With the resolution, you're essentially putting the Security Council into the game."
On Thursday, reaction from Security Council members was mixed. Hours before Schroeder and Chirac spoke, Russia sent its first signal that it might consider sending peacekeepers to Iraq as part of an international force.
"It all depends on a specific resolution. I wouldn't exclude it outright," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told the Interfax news agency.
And in Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the U.S. offer to share Iraq's postwar reconstruction was in line with the objectives of China, which has "actively participated" in the effort to increase U.N. participation.
"We have all along stood for the early restoration of stability throughout Iraq," Kong said. "We have stood for the important growth of the United Nations in this endeavor."
He didn't provide details. China's foreign policy is typically cautious, and — publicly, at least — it is reluctant to intervene officially in conflicts. But Beijing opposed unilateral American military action in Iraq and said all such activity should go through the United Nations.
U.S. diplomats are expected to engage in behind-the-scenes negotiations on the resolution's text, first with the veto-wielding permanent members, then with the rest of the Security Council.
Powell discussed the resolution Wednesday with his Russian, German and French counterparts as well as with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites). He said he expected to get reaction and suggestions to the resolution from fellow Security Council members by the end of the week.
"We will see where we are at the beginning of (next) week and push it as aggressively as we can," he said.
Powell said he didn't foresee "an extended process" of negotiations. Other council diplomats said they would like the resolution to be adopted before ministers gather for the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 23.
But some European countries are likely to resist if the United States continues to try to hold on to all the lucrative and influential ventures, such as oil contracts and the political rebuilding process, according to some council diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The postwar operation is costing the United States about $3.9 billion a month and has strained the American military, which has some 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq.
The resolution envisions a substantial infusion of international aid to defray costs now largely borne by U.S. taxpayers. At the same time, the administration is preparing a new budget request for $60 billion to $70 billion for reconstruction and the military operation of Iraq — nearly double what Congress was expecting, The Washington Post reported.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
So the horse trading starts.
The US (and UK) want help in Iraq. The rest of the Security Council want more influence on what goes on in the country but won't want to be seen to block international help and support that benefits the people of Iraq.
There will be a deal behind the scenes and a resolution simply because no-one involved can afford to be blamed for there not being one.
Prediction - the US will retain the overall military command simply through having more troops in Iraq than anyone else. The UN will get a bigger say in some of the reconstruction work, but not anything oil related. Paul Bremer will be left in charge to sort out the political timetable but that timetable will have to get eventual UN endorsement.
Last edited by CerberusIV on 04-09-2003 at 20:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
You have your facts really, really wrong.
Yes, they were part of a U.N. coalition force, that authorized, no, demanded, a cease-fire.
Bush Sr. wanted to drag Hussein out by his heels, and the inglorious U.N. protested.
Read 1441.
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Don't be like some of these uninformed/ill-informed morons, Mike. |
just to correct slow - it was left to the US to negotiate the details of the '91 ceasefire. Schwarzkopf in particular. US said no flights. Iraqis said the roads are shot, can we use choppers to move folks around. Schwarzkopf said sure. Ok if we use armed copters? Sure. Well it was the helo's that they used to crush the Shiite and Kurdish rebellions. Purely oversight? Powell and others later said that if Saddam had fallen to the rebellion, we would have had the responsibility for keeping order in Iraq, and it would have been a mess. Well guess what - we now DO have that responsibility, and its more of a mess in part cause the Shiites dont trust us, cause of '91.
Face it - we left Saddam in cause Bush,Sr didnt want to occupy Iraq - not cause of the UN - in all probability cause Bush's Saudi friends didnt want a Shia/kurdish dominated state next door.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by oedo
then why not saying "war" if war was meant?
the resolution said "serious consequences", because "military intervention" or even "war" wouldn´t have got a majority in the security council. the majority of the SC didn´t want a resolution which justified a war. so one could even say "serious consequences" meant anything but war. neither the word "military" nor the word "war" appeared in the resolution. |
that was explained at the time.
It was feared by France, Germany, and Russia that if 1441 authorized "war" without going back to the council, the US might seize on a trivial act of non-compliance, such as a minor discrepancy in the Iraqi documentation of WMD's called for under 1441 as "authorization". By not explicity calling for war it would force the US to go back and show that Iraq was SUBSTANTIALLY in non-compliance with 1441.
Well the Iraqis WERE substantially in non-compliance with 1441. Even before inspections began, since their documentation was flagrantly non-compliant (it neither admitted WMD's nor documented their destruction) France NEVER disputed this. Nor did they dispute that "serious consequences" meant war. Instead they simply asked for more time for inspections, and for not "rushing" to war - IE they argued the SUBSTANCE of the situation - not the legal points relative to 1441.
What apparently happened was that France accepted the wording "serious consequences" on the assumption that Saddam would at least try to look like he was in compliance - he would put SOMETHING in his documentation strong enough that it could be argued that his non-compliance was unclear. Well for reasons that are yet unexplained, Saddam did not do that, and left France holding the bag. France therefore had to make arguments that did not reference 1441. Given the general global discomfort with US power this was enough to win at the UNSC, but not enough to stop the invasion.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2003 19:42
go fish buddy! 
|