You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Four Nations Seek Iraq Resolution Changes
2004-05-27
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Four key nations proposed major changes Wednesday to the U.S.-British draft resolution on Iraq, moves that would give the new government control over the Iraqi army and police and require the multinational force to consult on military actions except for self-defense.

A three-page proposal by China - which diplomats said was supported in large part by Russia, France and Germany - would give the interim government that takes over on June 30 the right to decide whether foreign forces remain in the country and limit the multinational mandate to January 2005. Both changes would bolster the sovereign powers of the Iraqi interim government and extend far greater authority than the resolution introduced to the U.N. Security Council on Monday by Britain and the United States.

The proposal would require the multinational force to "consult with the interim government in respect of military actions except for self-defense." This issue is not mentioned in the U.S.-British draft. The proposal would also determine "that the interim government of Iraq shall exercise full sovereignty, in the political, economic, security, judicial and diplomatic areas, including the power to control and dispose all the natural and economic resources, sign economic cooperation agreements and contracts, and enjoy judicial independence and the power to administer prisons in Iraq."
That's the key graf: the French still want the oil fields.
The U.S.-British draft reaffirms authorization for the multinational force currently in Iraq to continue to maintain security and stability, under a unified command. It would review the force's mandate in 12 months or at the request of the transitional government which will be elected by early next year. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte called the U.S.-British draft "a good resolution" that could be "fine-tuned" but doesn't need to be rewritten. But many other council members have called it a good starting point, and the Chinese proposal and comments by the French, German and Russian ambassadors clearly indicate they want substantive changes.
Posted by:Steve White

#9  SPECIAL CLAUSE - "And 2% of the proceeds from the sale of petoleum shall be deposited in four accounts in the Cayamn Islands. The accounts will be listed under the names of the leaders of China, Russia, France, and Germany." -

This special clause was removed because the four ambassadors were convinced this approach was too obvious, and 2% each was too low. They were negotiating for 5%.
Posted by: BigEd   2004-05-27 5:02:49 PM  

#8  I agree, Bush doesn't need the UN for the election. The folks that a UN Resolution would make a difference too are already voting for Kerry (or Nader).
Posted by: ruprecht   2004-05-27 3:50:57 PM  

#7  now that is funny - honor from france and russia..lololol
Posted by: Dan   2004-05-27 1:35:56 PM  

#6  And Bush needs the U. N. resolution for the election.

UN resolutions mean diddly squat. Anyone with half a brain already knows that.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-05-27 1:25:30 PM  

#5  A three-page proposal by China - which diplomats said was supported in large part by Russia, France and Germany

That's enough for me to declare this proposal DOA. They're not fooling anyone except for al-Gore.
Posted by: Raj   2004-05-27 12:50:54 PM  

#4  I respectfully disagree, Mr. Davis.
President Bush hasn't come this far to cave into the UN now and I don't believe he will.
He's making the gesture to make the gesture.
To turn over any control of our troops would be FOLLY in the extreme and no American President with any sense would allow it.
Bush has rolled the dice politically all this time because he does what's right for America.
We spent our blood and treasure to liberate Iraq and we didn't do it by kowtowing to the UN and I doubt very much if we'll start now.
Posted by: Jen   2004-05-27 12:42:45 PM  

#3  We'll end up accepting something in the middle after more negotiations. The People of the U. S. are not prepared to make a long term commitment of troops to Iraq in the face of opposition from the government we create. Six months, twelve months, what's the difference. If they want us, we'll stay and the Phrawnch will have to accept it.. If not, we'll leave and the Phrawnch will restart the bribe machine.

And Bush needs the U. N. resolution for the election.

It is going to take a lot more bad news before the American People are ready to ignore the U. N., unfortuantely.
Posted by: Mr. Davis   2004-05-27 12:38:25 PM  

#2  Unfortunately, but inevitably, when we go to the UN, the same cast of characters will do the same behaviors. Maybe we need James Baker's briefcase opened up and show the world what a bunch of crooks we have here. Once and for all.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-05-27 12:13:28 PM  

#1  Bush should tell them "thanks for the comments, but no thanks". The UN screwed the Iraqi people. The French, Germans and Russians screwed the Iraqi people. Now they play these games. Have they no honor? Have they no shame? If they won't pass it as written the US should threaten to walk away from the UN entirely.
Posted by: ruprecht   2004-05-27 11:14:52 AM  

00:00