Security Council Diplomats Not Happy with New Iraq Resolution

[UpInArms]

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3010921

Key UN Security Council were tonight still not satisfied with a revised Anglo- American resolution on Iraq and want more changes and input from the country’s new interim leaders.

Russia and Germany added their concerns to those expressed earlier by

China, France, Algeria and Chile.

The US and Britain circulated the revised blueprint on the end of their occupation and hand-over of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government on June 30, addressing two issues raised by council members.

The revised resolution would give the new government control of the Iraqi army and police, and would end the mandate for a multinational force by January 2006. The original draft did not address the issue of control of Iraqi security forces or include an end to the force’s mandate.

While many council members welcomed the improvements, it was clear that Washington and London would have to make further changes to get the approval of all 15 council nations.

...more...

Guess Armitage the Propagandist was wrong.

[Just Me]

1. Yeah,...like this wasn't totally predictable.

The neocons draft a semi-sovereignty BS resolution with the perpetual presence of US forces,...and they expected everyone to jump on board?

PUH-LEASE!!!

[LittleApple81]

2. Well.... the UN and the old Europe nations are showing more spine than

I gave them credit for when the Iraq war started. I thought they would join the "coalition of the bought" as soon as the invasion was successful.

[Spazito]

3. Britain and the US keep using "weasel words" within the.....

revised resolution and it isn't going to work. They must be getting desperate because they NEED this resolution to pass by June 30th. I hope the other Security Council members keep holding their feet to the fire on this.

[Old and In the Way]

4. It's all about the oil and bases.

Without the oil and bases, why else would we be there? The UN and Iraq know this. Personally, I think Bush and the neocons are holding a losing hand.....they're hoping they can continue to bluff through the next election.

[cspiguy]

5. The council wants the US to immediately cede control to the iraqis

and withdraw their military - because then the insurgents can take control of the new government even quicker.

[Spazito]

6. No, they want Britain and the US to put an end date sooner than

2006 for withdrawal of the troops and for that end date to be clear and without weasel words. They want REAL "full sovereignty" for the Iraqi people, not faux sovereignty as is not put forward. Iraq has a right to determine it's future, if they decide on something other than a US style of "democracy", that is their choice.

[papau]

7. Today Bush said he understood "the insurgents" -they're "not terrorists"

"the insurgents can take control of the new government even quicker" appears to be the new Bush policy.

Can we say FLIP/FLOP?

:-)

[sundancekid]

8. 3 hearty cheers for the Security Council ... you know that old saying:

fool me once, shame on you
fool me, and I'll never trust your sorry a$$ again

what? the rest of the world doesn't get our beneficent plan and vision of "have-democracy-our-way" and a "double agent a day makes america pay and pay" -- why those lousy ingrates!

It seems clear to me that those other countries get it, and oh, so well. I'm sure countries like China firmly believe that the FIRST order of business is to get US troops (AND their ongoing staging capacity for the next preemptive war in the region) the heck outa there asap, now, and PRONTO! They think there's no excuse post January 2005, let alone under the UN mandate!!!

[struggle4progress]

9. Resolution on Iraq needs changes, says Chirac

<snip>
"Although it is a good basis for discussion, it needs further improvement to affirm and confirm the full sovereignty of the Iraqi government, particularly in the military domain," Mr Chirac said of the new draft.
<snip>

Earlier, Richard Armitage, US deputy secretary of state and a strong supporter of engaging Washington's allies, raised expectations that the French and Germans, the staunchest opponents of the US-led war on Iraq, might back the resolution.
<snip>

"Given the big summits ahead, Armitage took advantage of the timing to reassure the allies and to make sure the waters will be smooth. This is what effective multilateralism is supposed to be about," said a senior Nato official.
<snip>

"We don't expect that there are going to be large numbers of forces that will come from others," Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, said on Wednesday. It was time to train Iraqis to deal with their own security, she told the CBS network, predicting an "uptick" in violence.
<snip>

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1085944469928

[maddezmom]

10. France, Russia, Germany Say Iraq Draft Needs Work

PARIS (Reuters) - France and Russia, who both have veto power in the U.N. Security Council, said on Wednesday the latest draft U.N. resolution on Iraq (news - web sites) put forward by the United States and Britain needed more work.



Germany, which disagreed strongly with last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also said changes were needed to the second draft submitted on Tuesday by the United States and Britain giving Iraq considerable authority over its security and economy after Washington's planned handover on June 30.


"Although it is a good basis for discussion, it needs further improvement to affirm and confirm the full sovereignty of the Iraqi government, particularly in the military domain," French President Jacques Chirac told reporters.


France and Russia are two of the five permanent veto-wielding members of the Security Council, along with China, Britain and the United States
~snip~
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20040602/wl_nm/iraq_resolution_reaction_dc