Sparrowhawk
10-16-03, 11:25 PM
Heck, is Syria more pro-American than some democrats? "The U.N. Security Council Thursday unanimously adopted a U.S.-sponsored resolution that calls for the establishment of a U.S.-led multinational force and appeals to U.N. members to provide troops and money to help support the struggling U.S. occupation of Iraq," reports the Washington Post.
Even Syria voted for the resolution. "But France, Russia, Germany and Pakistan said after the vote that they would not make any new military or financial contributions to support the resolution." Weasels.
Then again, can one really blame them for being reluctant to pony up when prominent American politicians are working to undermine the Iraq reconstruction effort? USA Today reports two Democratic presidential candidates, John Kerry and John Edwards, say they'll defy the U.N. and vote against funding Iraq's reconstruction--even though both of them voted for the war resolution last year. Howard Dean also says if he were in Congress, he'd vote "no," unless he could get a tax increase in exchange for an affirmative vote. Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman intend to vote "yes." Wesley Clark takes no position.
<hr>
washingtonpost.com
U.N. Backs Iraq Resolution
France, Germany, Russia Agree but Will Not Offer Help
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 17, 2003; Page A01
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 16 -- The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted on Thursday a resolution that calls for the establishment of a multinational force led by the United States, and appeals to U.N. members to provide troops and money to help support the struggling U.S. occupation of Iraq.
The passage of the U.S.-sponsored resolution, by a vote of 15 to 0, represented an important diplomatic achievement for the United States, which overcame stiff opposition from U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and key council members. But France, Russia, Germany and Pakistan tempered that achievement by announcing after the vote that they will not make any new military or financial contributions to support Iraq's recovery.
The new resolution preserves U.S. military and political control over Iraq until an internationally recognized government is sworn in, provides a symbolic measure of sovereignty to the U.S.-approved Iraqi Governing Council and sets a deadline of Dec. 15 for that council to establish a timetable for writing a constitution and holding elections. It also gives the United Nations, which will continue to deliver humanitarian aid, an opportunity to play a broader political role if security improves.
After the vote, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in Washington that the resolution will aid him as he seeks greater international support for the Iraq mission. Powell conceded that the resolution will not be "opening doors" to new contributions of peacekeepers for the time being, but said he hopes it "assists those nations who are interested in providing troops by giving this broader U.N. mandate. "With respect to additional contributions, it certainly does assist as we now go around and ask people to be generous," he said.
The council's vote prompted an expression of praise of the Bush administration from influential Democratic critics, including Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. "What the vote did today was legitimize the presence of American forces in Iraq," Biden said. "It gives a horizon for the Iraqi people and the American people, and it invests the rest of the world in the outcome."
Still, the unanimous passage of Resolution 1511 masked strong misgivings by Annan and other key council members over the course of U.S. policy in Iraq. Pakistan's U.N. ambassador, Munir Akram, warned that the ongoing U.S. occupation would continue to incite violence in Iraq and announced that his government will reject an American request to send Pakistani peacekeepers there.
"The deployment of credible military capabilities in Iraq is no doubt essential," Akram said. But he said Pakistan "will not be able to contribute" to a force that does not have an invitation from a sovereign Iraqi government and that serves under the command of a U.S.-led army of occupation.
In a joint statement, France, Russia and Germany, the council's three leading opponents to the war, voiced frustration that the resolution had not assigned a more central role for the United Nations or set a clearer schedule for the transfer of power to Iraqis. Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, said the council had squandered an opportunity to send "a clear signal that the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis will be accelerated."
Thursday's vote followed a week of intense diplomacy that culminated with a decision Wednesday by Russian President Vladimir Putin to back the U.S. resolution, triggering a move by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, French President Jacques Chirac and other council members to rally behind a text that failed to meet their fundamental demands for a swift end to the U.S. military occupation.
Russia's role as the principal deal-maker on Iraq represented a realignment of power in the Security Council, where France has traditionally played the power-broker role, bridging major differences between the United States and Britain on one hand and the Chinese and Russians on the other. "That was a very interesting experience for a diplomat to see," said Spain's U.N. ambassador, Inocencio F. Arias. "To see the Russians being the bridge between the United States, Spain and Great Britain and their two European allies. That's a historical change, and I'm happy I saw it."
The Bush administration's campaign to seek passage of the resolution began shortly after the Aug. 19 terrorist attack on a U.N. compound in Baghdad, which killed 22 people, including the U.N. chief envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello. But it nearly unraveled last week after Annan told the Americans that he would not send U.N. staffers in Iraq to play the expanded political role outlined in the resolution unless the United Nations were given greater independence and better assurances of safety.
Over the weekend, Powell inserted a provision in the text that allows Annan to delay implementing the resolution until "circumstances permit." He still had to counter opposition from other members of the Security Council, with the antiwar troika of Russia, France and Germany chief among them. Those three insisted that the United States agree to add a series of amendments, including a provision for a clear timetable for ending the U.S. occupation.
The United States split the bloc by offering Russia a series of final concessions that assured that the U.S. military occupation will end when a new Iraqi government assumes power. The Bush administration vowed that United States will seek to yield power to Iraqis as soon as "practicable."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Even Syria voted for the resolution. "But France, Russia, Germany and Pakistan said after the vote that they would not make any new military or financial contributions to support the resolution." Weasels.
Then again, can one really blame them for being reluctant to pony up when prominent American politicians are working to undermine the Iraq reconstruction effort? USA Today reports two Democratic presidential candidates, John Kerry and John Edwards, say they'll defy the U.N. and vote against funding Iraq's reconstruction--even though both of them voted for the war resolution last year. Howard Dean also says if he were in Congress, he'd vote "no," unless he could get a tax increase in exchange for an affirmative vote. Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman intend to vote "yes." Wesley Clark takes no position.
<hr>
washingtonpost.com
U.N. Backs Iraq Resolution
France, Germany, Russia Agree but Will Not Offer Help
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 17, 2003; Page A01
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 16 -- The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted on Thursday a resolution that calls for the establishment of a multinational force led by the United States, and appeals to U.N. members to provide troops and money to help support the struggling U.S. occupation of Iraq.
The passage of the U.S.-sponsored resolution, by a vote of 15 to 0, represented an important diplomatic achievement for the United States, which overcame stiff opposition from U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and key council members. But France, Russia, Germany and Pakistan tempered that achievement by announcing after the vote that they will not make any new military or financial contributions to support Iraq's recovery.
The new resolution preserves U.S. military and political control over Iraq until an internationally recognized government is sworn in, provides a symbolic measure of sovereignty to the U.S.-approved Iraqi Governing Council and sets a deadline of Dec. 15 for that council to establish a timetable for writing a constitution and holding elections. It also gives the United Nations, which will continue to deliver humanitarian aid, an opportunity to play a broader political role if security improves.
After the vote, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in Washington that the resolution will aid him as he seeks greater international support for the Iraq mission. Powell conceded that the resolution will not be "opening doors" to new contributions of peacekeepers for the time being, but said he hopes it "assists those nations who are interested in providing troops by giving this broader U.N. mandate. "With respect to additional contributions, it certainly does assist as we now go around and ask people to be generous," he said.
The council's vote prompted an expression of praise of the Bush administration from influential Democratic critics, including Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. "What the vote did today was legitimize the presence of American forces in Iraq," Biden said. "It gives a horizon for the Iraqi people and the American people, and it invests the rest of the world in the outcome."
Still, the unanimous passage of Resolution 1511 masked strong misgivings by Annan and other key council members over the course of U.S. policy in Iraq. Pakistan's U.N. ambassador, Munir Akram, warned that the ongoing U.S. occupation would continue to incite violence in Iraq and announced that his government will reject an American request to send Pakistani peacekeepers there.
"The deployment of credible military capabilities in Iraq is no doubt essential," Akram said. But he said Pakistan "will not be able to contribute" to a force that does not have an invitation from a sovereign Iraqi government and that serves under the command of a U.S.-led army of occupation.
In a joint statement, France, Russia and Germany, the council's three leading opponents to the war, voiced frustration that the resolution had not assigned a more central role for the United Nations or set a clearer schedule for the transfer of power to Iraqis. Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, said the council had squandered an opportunity to send "a clear signal that the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis will be accelerated."
Thursday's vote followed a week of intense diplomacy that culminated with a decision Wednesday by Russian President Vladimir Putin to back the U.S. resolution, triggering a move by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, French President Jacques Chirac and other council members to rally behind a text that failed to meet their fundamental demands for a swift end to the U.S. military occupation.
Russia's role as the principal deal-maker on Iraq represented a realignment of power in the Security Council, where France has traditionally played the power-broker role, bridging major differences between the United States and Britain on one hand and the Chinese and Russians on the other. "That was a very interesting experience for a diplomat to see," said Spain's U.N. ambassador, Inocencio F. Arias. "To see the Russians being the bridge between the United States, Spain and Great Britain and their two European allies. That's a historical change, and I'm happy I saw it."
The Bush administration's campaign to seek passage of the resolution began shortly after the Aug. 19 terrorist attack on a U.N. compound in Baghdad, which killed 22 people, including the U.N. chief envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello. But it nearly unraveled last week after Annan told the Americans that he would not send U.N. staffers in Iraq to play the expanded political role outlined in the resolution unless the United Nations were given greater independence and better assurances of safety.
Over the weekend, Powell inserted a provision in the text that allows Annan to delay implementing the resolution until "circumstances permit." He still had to counter opposition from other members of the Security Council, with the antiwar troika of Russia, France and Germany chief among them. Those three insisted that the United States agree to add a series of amendments, including a provision for a clear timetable for ending the U.S. occupation.
The United States split the bloc by offering Russia a series of final concessions that assured that the U.S. military occupation will end when a new Iraqi government assumes power. The Bush administration vowed that United States will seek to yield power to Iraqis as soon as "practicable."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company