U.S. Seems Assured of U.N.'s Approval on Plans for Iraq

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 14 — The Bush administration is virtually assured of gaining Security Council approval of a revised United Nations resolution on Iraq's future, diplomats here said Tuesday, but it remains unclear whether the measure will be adopted overwhelmingly or in a less convincing, abstention-riddled vote.

The resolution, however it passes, will mark an important step in the administration's attempt to gain broader international backing both for the occupation forces in Iraq and the reconstruction of the country.

A week after it had flirted with abandoning the resolution in the face of objections from Secretary General Kofi Annan and countries like France, the administration produced a new version that made symbolic concessions to some of these concerns and then called for a vote on Wednesday afternoon.

In response, Russia, France and Germany presented amendments Tuesday morning that concede to the American-led coalition control over the gradual transfer of power to Iraqis, but gives the Security Council some oversight authority. In particular, they call on the coalition to give the Council a schedule for the transfer of power.

Under the American draft, the Iraqi Governing Council must produce by Dec. 15 a timetable for drafting a constitution and holding elections — the two steps seen as essential by the United States for a meaningful transfer of authority.

Germany, France and Russia argued Tuesday in proposed amendments that this timetable should be presented to the Security Council.

The European amendments were sent to Washington for consideration by the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell at midday, but administration officials made it clear that they had little time or inclination for further compromises.

Negotiations in the late afternoon among Council members at the American mission closed the gap between the two camps slightly, but one diplomat expressed concern that Washington had not gone far enough to win the broad-based consensus that it seeks.

Even so, Washington and London are expected to get enough votes to pass the resolution, although as many as five countries of the 15 members could abstain, including Syria, China and the amendment's three sponsors, diplomats said.

The outline of a compromise seemed clear on Tuesday. The European proposals explicitly acknowledge that any schedule will be based on what the American-led coalition deems practicable. Originally, these countries had sought to transfer some authority to a provisional Iraqi government as soon as possible, perhaps within five months. This effort has now, it seems, been abandoned.

But the French ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said Tuesday afternoon that the amendments left open the possibility of establishing a provisional government and asked that a precise schedule for the transfer of power to Iraqis be submitted to the Security Council.

He also said that the United Nations should have a direct role in preparing both that timetable and the step-by-step process of drafting a constitution and holding elections.

"This would be the minimum," he said. "If the co-sponsors would accept this proposal, then we could have a united Council."

During Council consultations on Tuesday morning, China's ambassador indicated his support of the European amendments. There were informal indications that wavering African and Latin American countries were now on board, after being lobbied by Washington over the weekend, according to diplomats.

Washington's latest revisions were greeted with little enthusiasm Tuesday morning by Mr. Annan, who said he felt the new version did not "represent a major shift in the thinking of the coalition," and warned that "as long as there's an occupation, the resistance will grow."

A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, did not rule out the possibility that some themes in the European amendments could be incorporated in the text but made it clear that others were unacceptable.

•Debt already daunting. When a new Iraqi government is formed, it will face a staggering foreign debt of as much as $130 billion accumulated by Saddam Hussein, plus $100 billion in reparations owed from the 1991 Gulf War. Saddling Iraq with more debt would complicate efforts to repair an economy in tatters. It also makes the U.S. look hypocritical by adding to Iraq's debt even as it tries to persuade France, Russia and other foreign creditors to forgive or postpone some of their loans to Iraq.

3 posted on 10/14/2003 7:18:19 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)

it tries to persuade France, Russia and other foreign creditors to forgive or postpone some of their loans to Iraq.

This is the NY Times trying to goad the French & Co. to throw up roadblocks at the last minute so they can teach Bush a lesson for being "assured"

And why wouldn't they be? I wondered what the price tag would be when the UN did an about face, and I didn't need to wait long to find out....the US is back supporting UNESCO. It wasn't worth the price.

NYT's is dismayed and dissapointed. W wins another one.

Hey Kofi and Jacque, take this resolution and shove it.

The UN is going to screw around until Iraq is completely on it's feet without them. They don't seem to understand that the Iraqi people are watching all of this and they will remember for a very long time who helped and who did not.

Colin Powell's assurances of the malleability of the UN has hurt Bush severely before the war. I feel pretty certain the French will no doubt try to put on a repeat performance this time around.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.