France and Germany seek full UN control over Iraq

The Guardian ^ | 9/10/03 | Patrick Wintour

[truthandlife]

France and Germany will back the new UN resolution on Iraq sought by President George Bush only if the proposal gives the UN full political rule over the country. The countries have also demanded a clear programme for returning power to Iraqis.

The high price sought by the French suggests that Mr Bush is going to struggle to win UN agreement ahead of his planned speech to the security council on September 24. Foreign ministers of the five permanent members are due to meet the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, in Geneva this weekend to try to find common ground.

Paris wants the UN to run Iraq temporarily on the model of Afghanistan, but insists its proposals do not represent an attempt to settle scores over the unilateral action by the US and Britain in Iraq.

France and Germany will accept the authority of the 25-strong governing council of Iraq, even though its membership was largely handpicked by the Anglo-US provisional authority. France believes the handover needs to be quick since many Iraqis fail to distinguish between US and UN control of the country.

Mr Bush has already tabled a draft resolution to leave US in full control of the coalition military, and give the UN only limited authority.

French sources insist they will approach the talks constructively, and not attempt to humiliate the US over its inability to restore order after the invasion.

The French remain surprised at the lack of planning for postwar reconstruction, and of any apparent serious thought about the prospect of conflict between the Shia and Sunni groups. France doubts a solution lies in extra troops, but says the governing council needs to be given a clear impression of a timetable leading to democratic elections and a constitutional assembly.

Both Britain and the US have suggested elections are held within a year, but they have failed to put this timetable into the draft. France is not insisting on a specific timetable, since such dates might not be met, which could lead to a more general loss of momentum.

It remains sceptical of the idea that Britain is wielding significant influence over the new conservative mood in Washington. It has been suggested that No 10 saw the draft US resolution only a couple of days before it was circulated to security council members.

France is also seeking greater UN control of Iraqi oil revenues.

· Mr Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, appeared to admit yesterday that the US government had failed to appreciate the scale of the reconstruction job in Iraq. She blamed a lack of information under the rule of Saddam Hussein, which meant any underestimate of the size of the task "was not at all surprising".

However, according to the Washington Post, violent resistance to US forces in Iraq was predicted by intelligence agencies, whose warnings may have been ignored by the White House. An unnamed senior administration official told the paper: "Intelligence reports told them at some length about possibilities for unpleasantness."

[smiley]

Can anyone of our Freepers please explain to me how France and Germany can strong arm the peace process? I just do not understand it. Thank you.

[facedown]

France and Germany will back the new UN resolution on Iraq sought by President George Bush only if the proposal gives the UN full political rule over the country.

DOA

[joesnuffy]

they just want to return a "friendly" Iraqi dictator to power to turn back on the
oil for food skim money

[snooker]

Sure the Frenchies have a veto over anything else. Cold war relic.

[AntiGuv]

Because the active-duty Army cannot maintain an occupation force above 60,000 beyond March - according to the Congressional Budgeting Office... We don't have enough soldiers..

[AntiGuv]

DOA

Don't bet on it. GWB wants to get reelected more than he wants political control over Iraq.....

[wku man]

Bingo. I've heard specualtion that part of the $87 billion Bush is asking for would go to re-activate a couple of Army divisions, and maybe a few AF fighter wings. Have you heard anything that coroborates this? I hope it's true...that's something Bush should have pushed for starting on 9-12.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[AntiGuv]

I haven't heard anything along those lines, but I sure wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. We need at least a couple more Army divisions to deal with our current commitments and have the manpower to confront potential threats [North Korea, Iran].

[Bikers4Bush]

They still have a veto despite the fact that they aren't qualified to.

[ohioman]

F*ck France and Germany.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Simple. Our troops are spread thin in the world as a result of being thin spread in Iraq. Hence, even a brash fellow like Rumsfeld is forced to go begging to the UN for more troops. The problem of world policing overextension was made repeatedly by antiwar freepers in their predictions before the war, of course.

[mtbopfuyn]

re-activate a couple of Army divisions

Today Iraq, tomorrow France.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Don't be surprised if you're wrong. Bush has already accepted the fact that we need more multinational support there (which is completely impossible without a SC resolution). Now, the UN is in the driver seat of the negotiations.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Because we are desperate. It's quite reasonable. If you are a crack dealer and a crack whore comes to you for a fix, the crack whore doesn't have much leverage in negotiations.

We need help. We can't get help without UN suppport (because that's what India and Pakistan and Turkey require). Therefore, we do what we must for UN support.

We have plenty of resources to defeat armies. We don't to occupy nations. It is absolutely a failure that we didn't line up help from other nations to support us in the occupation before the war. It's harder now to get help (with the affirmation that these foreign troops would be in harm's way) than before when such a notion was just speculation and not a fact. We've also hurt our military, too. Don't be surprised to see recruiters having to work harder to meet their quotas-- particularly for the National Guard.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Part of it is that they think this is hilarious and they don't want the sitcom to end, and with it their viewing pleasure. Part of it is they seriously hate us and want us to fail. Part of it is shattered ego-- and they want the US to boost their self-esteem.

[GraniteStateConservative]

JR, do you still see a full capitulation regarding demands for UN political control of Iraq-- replacing Bremmer?

[bert]

It shoulod be very obvious that the Democrats are no longer the party of the American working man or the balcks or the Jews or the other smalle groups. The Democratic Party is now the party of France and the Europeans. They have thrown away completly American values and are luoudly proclaiming the goodness of Euro thought.

A much better name for the party is euroRats.

[GraniteStateConservative]

We're about to go for some butt love ourselves at the UN.

[Cronos]

Because the active-duty Army cannot maintain an occupation force above 60,000 beyond March

Why not? Don't tell me clintack did SO much damage?