Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The U.N. Vote on Iraq That the U.S. Wasn't Supposed to be Able to Get
The New York Times ^ | October 16, 2003 | FELICITY BARRINGER

Posted on 10/16/2003 8:54:14 AM PDT by publius1

Security Council Adopts U.S. Plan for Iraq in 15-0 Vote By FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: October 16, 2003

NITED NATIONS, Oct. 16 - The Security Council voted unanimously today to adopt a resolution on the future of Iraq. The 15-to-0 vote was a victory for the United States, but its impact was to some extent symbolic.

Hours before the Security Council acted, Russia, France and Germany, all of which opposed the war on Iraq, agreed to back the measure. But in a serious reservation, they said they would not go beyond the support they had already agreed upon in order to ease the burden of the American forces in Iraq.

The United States also won backing from China and Pakistan, and - perhaps most surprisingly - from Syria, the only Arab nation on the Security Council and a staunch opponent of the American-led war.

Pakistan, however, announced that it ``won't be able to contribute troops'' because a multinational force led by the United States that is created by the resolution does not have ``a separate and distinct identity'' from the coalition forces.

With the approval of the resolution, the United States and Britain win a sort of international assent to the political and military outcome of the Iraqi war, get approval of the multinational force and gain an endorsement for a political transition under the control of the American-led occupation authority.

But the resolution papers over the fundamental differences dividing the United States from many council members. It is unlikely to have much impact in winning new military forces beyond those that have already been committed, and financial contributions for Iraq's reconstruction.

The agreement on the vote by Germany, France and Russia came after a 45-minute conference call between the three countries' leaders: Chancellor Gerhard SchrÃoder of Germany, President Jacques Chirac of France and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

``We agreed that the resolution is really an important step in the right direction,'' Mr. SchrÃoder said in Brussels, where he was attending a European Union summit meeting.

The chancellor said, however, that neither Germany, France nor Russia ``are in a position to engage ourselves militarily'' or with ``material engagement.'' And he added that not all disagreements over Iraq's reconstruction had been overcome. France and Germany said both countries would attend the donors' conference in Madrid next week, however.

Washington agreed late on Wednesday to postpone the vote until today to give Mr. Putin time to try to persuade France and Germany to accept the draft, diplomats here said. Mr. Putin was in Malaysia today for a summit meeting of Muslim countries.

John D. Negroponte, the American ambassador, said Wednesday night that the draft resolution included three last-minute amendments, two of which give Secretary General Kofi Annan greater freedom of action to assist Iraq's political reconstruction. Speaking of the new draft and postponement, Mr. Negroponte said, ``It proves we've been listening.''

The vote is a diplomatic victory for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who brought the reluctant Security Council together without directly ceding any of the American-led coalition's control over Iraq's immediate political future.

Passage of the measure, which required a minimum of 9 votes in the council, had been assured since Washington engaged in intensive lobbying over the last five days.

But on Tuesday evening as many as five countries had indicated they were likely to abstain. Several abstentions would have clouded what otherwise represented a triumphant moment for the United States and Britain, sponsors of the resolution, along with Spain and Cameroon.

The dynamic shifted overnight, diplomats said on Wednesday, when China agreed to support the measure, and its diplomats began calling their counterparts on the Security Council seeking to bridge the final impasse, which left the United States, Britain and Spain refusing to include in the resolution any timetable for a transfer of power to the Iraqis, while Russia, France and Germany were insisting on just such a timetable.

The countries involved in the diplomatic maneuverings Wednesday were trying to synchronize divergent agendas. The United States was seeking the greatest possible majority among the 15 Security Council members for its plan to remain in control of Iraq until a constitution is drafted and ratified, elections are held, and a stable government is in place.

China, along with several of the smaller delegations, agreed with the Europeans' proposals but also felt that unity was crucial. The Chinese ambassador, Guangyo Wang, said Wednesday that he and his government tried to find a middle ground between Washington, which had almost closed the door on further negotiation, and the Europeans, who had made clear their plans to abstain.

Russia, France and Germany, which on Tuesday abandoned earlier demands for a quick transfer of power to an interim Iraqi authority and for United Nations control of the political transition, had submitted amendments to pin down an explicit timetable for the transition and to allow for the possibility of an earlier transfer of power to the Iraqis. On Tuesday, Washington rebuffed the core remaining demands while making other, minor concessions.

Russia, however, also wanted to find a formula to unify as much of the Council as possible, and offered a new, pared-down version of the amendments Wednesday. But it also wanted to maintain the united front with France and Germany that has been a fixture throughout the Iraq crisis.

The draft resolution, originally distributed to Security Council members six weeks ago, has been adjusted several times after both permanent and elected members of the council expressed grave reservations about the measure.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: china; france; germany; iraq; pakistan; russia; securitycouncil; syria; un; unitednations
Remember all the hang-wringing and attacks on Bush about this? He couldn't get it, and if he did, it would be a fractious vote? Guess not!
1 posted on 10/16/2003 8:54:15 AM PDT by publius1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: publius1
Unfortunately the UN still exists.
Unfortunately the UN is made up of thugs, socialists & globalists.
Unfortunately the UN just voted to remain relevent.
3 posted on 10/16/2003 9:03:40 AM PDT by JoeSixPack1 (POW/MIA Bring 'em Home, Or Send us Back!! Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExGuru
And how do you suppose free elections in Iraq in October of next year will play in the Presidential campaign.

Dubya is no dummy.

4 posted on 10/16/2003 9:05:25 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1
Very true. But it is still nice to walk into the Kofi's turf and walk away with 15-0 vote on a resulotion he was campaiging against.
5 posted on 10/16/2003 9:16:01 AM PDT by 20somethingconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
" Dubya is no dummy."

I think the media and the 'rats have come to believe their own spin about Dubya's intelligence. But that's ok. Let them keep thinking he's stupid. It's so much fun to watch him blindside the lot of 'em just when they think they had him down.

6 posted on 10/16/2003 9:18:59 AM PDT by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
At the very least, it takes away the bark from the Democrats who've been attacking Bush over going-it-alone. The Dems are losing their issues, one step at a time.
7 posted on 10/16/2003 9:27:31 AM PDT by cwb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cwboelter
As much as I despise the UN, at least this should stop the carping by all those who talk about unilateralism, etc. As long as the US retains control - and not the UN - I can live with it.
8 posted on 10/16/2003 9:29:28 AM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
And how do you suppose free elections in Iraq in October of next year will play in the Presidential campaign.

Dubya is no dummy.

Unfortunately, with Ayatollah Sistani's fatwa that the constitutional convention must be elected, and the position of the Shiite members of Governing Council supporting this, the process may be fairly slow and there may not be final elections by next October.

9 posted on 10/16/2003 9:35:53 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
So can I.

It's intesting how this resolution could also put the dems in a box. Now that we are getting some peripheral support, the Dems are going to look like obstructionists if they are now the ones holding up the financial aid for reconsrtuction. Ted Kennedy says he's all for supporting and protectng the troops; well doesn't he realize that the longer we're there, the more likely troops will be targets for attack? Or the longer that things remain in dissarry because of a lack of funding, the more bitter some Iraqi's may become and take out their frustrations on US Troops? This money is as much for our troops as it is for Iraq...the quicker things get done, the sooner we leave.
10 posted on 10/16/2003 9:36:58 AM PDT by cwb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: publius1; GailA; Grampa Dave
I suspect the unspoken disputes lie with the cash stashed in the Food for OIl program, and France's, etc.'s claims on it to pay off Iraqi debts.

A much underreported story, IMO.
11 posted on 10/16/2003 10:09:48 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Of course the left wing mediots of America and the world will never report on what you have brought back to our attention:

I suspect the unspoken disputes lie with the cash stashed in the Food for OIl program, and France's, etc.'s claims on it to pay off Iraqi debts.

12 posted on 10/16/2003 10:13:07 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Fight Liberalism 24/7/365 for only 17 cents / day. Donate $5 monthly to Free Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: publius1
Thanks for posting this. It appears that things are not going to hell in a hand basket in Iraq. If they were, the vote would not have been 15-to-0 vote which was a victory for the United States.
13 posted on 10/16/2003 10:16:55 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Fight Liberalism 24/7/365 for only 17 cents / day. Donate $5 monthly to Free Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius1
China, along with several of the smaller delegations, agreed with the Europeans' proposals but also felt that unity was crucial. The Chinese ambassador, Guangyo Wang, said Wednesday that he and his government tried to find a middle ground between Washington, which had almost closed the door on further negotiation, and the Europeans, who had made clear their plans to abstain.

THE MIND BOGGLES! We had to get former (Russia) and *current* Communist countries to convince our "allies" the French and Germans to go along ...

14 posted on 10/16/2003 10:48:39 AM PDT by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
btt
15 posted on 10/16/2003 11:40:10 AM PDT by GailA (Millington Rally for America after action http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/872519/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson