UN, in 15-to-0 vote, backs U.S. on Iraq; Bush seen as getting a big diplomatic lift

NYT/IHT ^ | 6.8.04

[ambrose]

UN, in 15-to-0 vote, backs U.S. on Iraq Warren Hoge/NYT NYT Wednesday, June 09, 2004 Plan calls for 'full sovereignty' transfer; Bush seen as getting a big diplomatic lift   UNITED NATIONS, New York The Security Council voted unanimously late Tuesday in favor of an American-British resolution to end the formal occupation of Iraq on June 30 and transfer "full sovereignty" to an Iraqi interim government. In addition to giving international legitimacy to the new caretaker government, the resolution authorizes an American-led multinational force, now at 160,000 troops, to use "all necessary measures" in "partnership" with Iraqi forces to bring peace. It also defines the UN role in post-transition Iraq. The vote will arm President George W. Bush with a major diplomatic success as he gathers with leaders of world powers for a Group of 8 summit meeting on Sea Island, Georgia. Earlier in the day, before the vote was taken, Bush said at a news conference with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan: "There were some who said we?d never get one, and it looks like, if things go well, it will be a unanimous vote, thereby saying to the world that members of the Security Council are interested in working together to make sure that Iraq is free and peaceful and democratic." Jean-Marc de la Sablière, ambassador of France, which had been the most demanding of the Council members in seeking changes in the text, had also predicted that it would be "a unimous vote." The resolution went through four revisions in two weeks. [There was, however, a powerful signal of discontent from Iraq as Shiites and Kurds argued over the wording of the resolution. Kurds insisted that Iraq?s interim constitution be mentioned as a way of underlining Kurdish self-rule in the north of the country, with Shiites saying such a clause would undercut the authority of the central government. Page 3] With the approval of the UN resolution, Bush will now be able to cite support from key Council countries like France, Germany and Russia that were vigorously opposed to the American campaign. A number of the Security Council countries that had faulted the United States for disdaining the United Nations before the war praised it for its willingness to accept suggestions and revisions in the negotiations that ended Monday night. Gunter Pleuger, the German ambassador, said the United States and Britain, co-sponsors of the resolution, had been "very flexible and very cooperative." Abdallah Baali, the ambassador of Algeria, the only Arab nation on the Council, said the resolution was "the best we could get under the circumstances." The U.S. ambassador, John Negroponte, who is going to Baghdad soon as the United States envoy there, said, "We have made a major effort to take into account the comments that have been made by various delegations, and we think it is an excellent resolution." The latest adjustment was made to meet a French and German demand that the relationship between Iraqi troops and the American-led forces ? outlined in letters annexed to the measure ? be spelled out in the measure itself. The letters, one from Iyad Allawi, prime minister of the interim Iraqi government, and the other from Secretary of State Colin Powell, describe a partnership between Iraqi forces and the United States command "on the full range of fundamental security and police issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations." Negroponte said that, though he believed the letters spoke for themselves, the United States had agreed to incorporate a "summary paragraph" of what they said into the resolution. "The new text reflects our concern, it meets 90 percent of our concern, and I think we can live with that," said Pleuger, who also predicted unanimous approval. Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz of Chile said the final text reflected suggestions put forward by his country, Spain and Brazil that the resolution state that all forces pledge to observe international human rights laws. In Georgia, Bush seemed to acknowledge that the resolution would not necessarily mean that allies would send more troops to Iraq, but he nevertheless seemed pleased with the final outcome. "I expect nations to contribute as they see fit," he said. "But of course the key to long-term security in Iraq is for all of us to work together to train Iraqi troops to handle their own security measures. And that?s precisely what we are doing on the ground and we will work with other nations to do as well." The resolution calls for elections no later than Jan. 31, 2005, to choose a national assembly that will draw up a permanent constitution aimed at holding direct elections for a full-term government a year later. The resolution also puts the new Iraqi leaders in charge of oil and gas revenues. The New York Times Copyright © 2004 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

[deport]

FYI.........

[Argus]

With the economy on a roll and Iraq on the mend, I guess Kerry's new campaign theme will be "We don't need Bush anymore to make America prosperous and safe. Vote for Kerry and we can all go back to sleep."

[JLS]

Ok,

1. First he ran on job losses and then jobs started growing at a fast pace.

2. Then he ran on internationalizing the Battle for Iraq in the War on Terror and the UN does this.

So what is Kerry to run on next?

[OneTimeLurker]

Great. How many new troops do we expect from the rest of the world?

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

BUMPS

[onyx]

Oh deport,
would I be reading too much into this vote
if I think this is utterly stupendous news?

[princess leah]

Here's hoping for a positive uptick in Bush's polling numbers by the end of the week...

[Dane]

So what is Kerry to run on next?

His(Kerry's) cutting in line at the Reagan repose, bringing in his own camera crew to show faux respect to a person(Reagan) he many times he has stated public animus towards, and then using the solemn event to take a political dig at Bush.

[Tailback]

What worries me about this vote is that it was at the expense of the truth about the oil for food program. My guess is that the scandal will quietly go away because the state department agreed to not release what really happened in exchange for the security councils unanimous vote.

[bad company]

lets hope he runs on high gas prices so they will go down

[ambrose]

International diplomacy is a dirty affair, no doubt about it...

[woodyinscc]

I think this is utterly stupendous news?

President Bush has stayed the course all along, the media is the one that was all wet.(what else is new?)Kerry will spin this as what he wanted all along, "I am glad President Bush has seen the light". The truth is that if Kerry were President, Saddam would still be in charge, the U.N. would still be siphoning off bribe money, and the Taliban would be on there third visit to Camp David.!!

[cripplecreek]

"So what is Kerry to run on next?"


Did you know that he was a Vietnam vet?

[RobFromGa]

I hope he starts on We haven't caught Osama. That should do the trick.

[BigSkyFreeper]

So what is Kerry to run on next?

To his credit, he's still got the Hate America First crowd backing him, so my guess is, he'll fall back onto his seething hatred.

[mtbopfuyn]

So what is Kerry to run on next?

#3 We can run him on a rail out of town and back to France.

[Integrityrocks]

How long has it been that we heard the battle cry.."We only went to Iraq for OIL!!!!!" excuse me... what oil.... I don't see any extra oil flowing our way.

[beebuster2000]

isnt it obvious? he isnt Bush. And that's not enough to get elected IMV

[snooker]

He is looking for a new angle right now ...