BREAKING NEWS The Associated Press Updated: 11:00 a.m. ET May 24, 2004 NEW YORK - The United States and Britain presented a new U.N. resolution Monday that would transfer "governing authority" in Iraq to a sovereign interim government by June 30 and authorize a multinational force to maintain peace with Iraqi 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. The multinational force that would operate for one year under a U.S. command before being reviewed by the United Nations. A new Iraqi govt could ask for a review sooner. 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. Informal discussions preceded introduction 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. Council ambassadors heading into the meeting, who had received advanced copies of the draft, reacted positively. The meeting came just hours before President Bush is expected to lay out his vision for the new Iraqi government in a nationally televised speech. The informal sessions prior to Monday's formal introduction focused on key elements in the resolution — the handover of power from the U.S. and British occupation authorities to an interim Iraqi government, the role of the multinational force currently led by the United States, and the role of the United Nations. At the center of the debate have been the questions of how much power Iraq's caretaker government will have and how long foreign troops will remain in the country. On Friday, U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham said all council members favored giving Iraq full sovereignty. That had became an issue when U.S. Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman said the Iraqi interim government should have only limited sovereignty. Iraqi leaders strongly objected, and Secretary of State Colin Powell later stepped in to say the restoration of sovereignty would be complete. ‘No limitation on ... sovereignty’ "The whole council is agreed that it's full sovereignty," Cunningham said Friday. "There's no limitation on the sovereignty." Meanwhile, U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is trying to get broad agreement on the shape of an interim Iraqi government by the end of May. As for the foreign troops, Powell has said the U.S.-led coalition force would leave if the interim government asked it to, though he doesn't expect that to happen. France and Germany want the new resolution to include a date for the end of the multinational force. Cunningham said Friday the new resolution will put the presence of the multinational force "under review and that the Iraqis will have a decisive voice." However, he said there would be no time limit. The resolution is also expected to give the caretaker government control over Iraq's income from oil sales. That money is now deposited in a fund controlled by the United States and Britain. Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The part about control of oil and is a plus. Hopfully they will include more about when exactly the elections will be and election monitoring. A date for the end of the military forces occupation would be good as well. But it seems like a good start, provided they get all the kinks worked out.
Well, not all of them, that would result in chaos, its not like we're going to pull all of our troops out (unless of course we get some UN help; but even then we'll be able to keep a small number). We'll have a force there, we just won't be in control of the govt. any more.
Hmm... Tactic One: Complain about a unilateral invasion (despite a broad coalition of countries participating). Decry the 'arrogant' administration's cavalier go-it-alone attitude. Tactic Two: Complain about forming a broad coalition. Complain about working with the United Nations. Confused? I think the liberals have confused even themselves this time!
Wrong, that's your side's tactic: Maybe you guys should get your story straight before you post Jorge. Do you think we should work with the UN? I'm pretty sure I can find any number of old posts of yours saying how we shouldn't. Do you want to try for full exposure here?
working with the UN is a far cry from granting the security coucil a veto over US foreign policy, as kerry has effectively advocated.
When has he advocated this? Edit: I just browsed over his speeches on his website and saw the UNSC mentioned once or twice in terms of building a coalition; exactly what GWB is doing now.
working with the UN is a far cry from granting the security coucil a veto over US foreign policy, as kerry has effectively advocated. Where and when did he say this?
Sam, you make a sarcastic comment about the decision to go to the UN after months of your demanding that the US go to the UN. You were called out for hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways. Please don't make me bring up last week's Categorical Denial thread. Please.
The first step is to stabilize Iraq. When I said "get the boys home ASAP," I was referring to the bulk fo our troops. There will have to be a peacekeeping force there for a while (either US or UN or some combination of the two), but once Iraq is stable, we need to get the bulk of our troops OUT of Iraq.
He hasn't. This is just a misinformation tactic that seems to be working. The right doesn't have to counter Kerry's positions if they just make up something and then claim Kerry is an advocate of said fabricated issue. Kerry has said specifically that he wants to fund and expand our intelligence services and then when we identify terrorists, take them out with covert operations. I personally believe this is the right way to fight the war on terror. We will scare more terrorists if they don't know when or where the attack is coming from as opposed to a traditional military engagement where the terrorists have the advantage. In addition, Kerry says that we need to use military force as one component of the war on terror, but that the vast majority of actions against terrorists should be via covert operations.
i'm seriously disappointed in you T_J for not checking with me first. otherwise, it just become a vast right-wing conspiracy of one.
Well if you fascists would have weekly meetings like Batman Jones, Deckard, FranchiseBlade and I do down at the Communist party headquarters you wouldn't run into this difficulty. Jorge Address the issue. Should Bush cooperate with the UN or not? And how has your view of this changed in the past year, or has it at all?
If I remember it right he said something similar to his college newspaper. When he was in college. Jorge, try and forgive us for finding it a little funny Bush is finally coming around to forming a meaningful coalition more than a year after the mission was "accomplished." Of course those of us on the left are for UN involvement and a broad coalition. We've argued for one for coming on two years. I, for one, am glad the administration's finally caught up. I'm just sorry it took things going to hell for them to do it.
