U.S. wins U.N. backing for Iraq handover plan

By Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers

DAVID KARP / AP United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan listens yesterday as the Security Council votes on the Iraq resolution.

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

Related stories Text of the U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq

The resolution was a major diplomatic victory for President Bush, who sought it as a key component of his strategy for ending violence that has killed nearly 830 U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis, and for establishing democracy in a country that has known only despotism.

France, Russia and Germany, which led international opposition to the March 2003 invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein, joined in the 15-0 vote.

Bush hailed the resolution. "These nations understand that a free Iraq will serve as a catalyst for change in the broader Middle East, which is an important part of winning the war on terror," he said in Sea Island, Ga., where he is hosting a summit of leading industrial powers.

It remained uncertain, however, whether the resolution will help the Bush administration persuade other nations to send troops to Iraq. France, Germany, Russia, Canada and other powers have made it clear that they will not contribute soldiers to Iraq.

There were also questions about whether most Iraqis will embrace U.N. recognition of the interim government, or dismiss the resolution as a veiled bid to impose a pro-U.S. puppet regime and extend the unpopular occupation by 162,000 foreign troops, 138,000 of them Americans.

Key points in U.N. Iraq resolution Reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force under unified command from a Security Council resolution adopted last year. It notes the foreign troops are there at "at the request of the incoming interim government of Iraq." Includes letters from Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell spelling out "a security partnership" between the new Iraqi government and the U.S.-led force. It states that new consultative bodies will be used "to reach agreement on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations." States that the Iraqi government will control its own troops and can veto Iraqi participation in operations by the multinational force. Calls for the mandate for the multinational force to be reviewed after 12 months or at the request of the transitional government that will take power early next year — and adds that the mandate will expire after elections to be held by Dec. 31, 2005, under a new constitution. It also declares that the council "will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the government of Iraq." The Associated Press

"The Iraqis will like the fact that the occupation ends," said Amatzia Baram, a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace, in Washington. "But because they will perceive this as just another way of legitimatizing the American presence, I think it will have very little effect. It will not make a big difference."

Hours before the U.N. vote, thousands of Shiite Muslims, who constitute 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million people, marched through Baghdad to protest the resolution and demand an Islamic constitution in place of a Western-style transitional law imposed by the U.S.-run occupation.

The march was the first public sign that followers of Iraq's most senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, may be forging a united front with militants loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, a young cleric who has led a six-week uprising against occupation forces.

Some leaders predicted the resolution would have little immediate effect.

"Without any exaggeration, I would state that it is a major step forward," Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a photo session with Bush at Sea Island. He noted, however, "Surely, it will take quite a long time before the adoption of the document will have any impact on real change on the ground in Iraq."

The U.S.-British resolution was approved after weeks of intense negotiations in which the Bush administration showed uncharacteristic flexibility in trying to allay the concerns of other U.N. Security Council members.

U.S. and British officials said they believed that the resolution marked a turning point in their efforts to put Iraq on the road to democracy after decades of violent dictatorship and wars.

"The resolution gives (Iraq's interim) government the best possible start as it leads Iraq out of occupation and proves itself to the Iraqi people through its actions," Emyr Jones Parry, Britain's U.N. ambassador, told the Security Council.

The interim government, which was assembled by U.S. officials and their Iraqi allies and approved by a U.N. special envoy, will assume "full sovereignty" from the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority on June 30.

The resolution calls for parliamentary elections by Jan. 31, and the drafting of a new constitution by the end of next year.

The most contentious issues had involved the continued presence of the U.S.-led multinational force.

The resolution authorizes the force's continued presence, but terminates its mandate at the end of January 2006 and gives the Iraqi government the power to demand its withdrawal at any time.

In a nod to German and French demands, the U.S. and British governments agreed to give the interim Iraqi authorities control over Iraqi security forces. But they resisted calls to give the Iraqis a veto over U.S.-led military operations.

Instead, the United States pledged to establish a "security partnership" with the interim Iraqi government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, and to negotiate an agreement on the staging of "sensitive offensive operations."

The resolution contains a request by the interim Iraqi government for the continued deployment of the U.S.-led multinational force to help control violence that could derail the democratization process.

"The multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq," it says.

Baram said he was concerned that the arrangements for control of the Iraqi and U.S.-led forces could create serious political problems for both.

He said it is hard to envision circumstances in which U.S.-led troops conduct a major offensive, such as the recent operation around Fallujah, without permission of the interim government.

"Imagine the situation where the Americans are attacking Fallujah and there are civilian casualties and the Iraqi government is criticizing the Americans," he said. "I really think the Americans will have to get the Iraqi government's permission."

Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Hannah Allam in Baghdad, Iraq, contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

E-mail this article

Print this article

Search archive

More nation & world headlines...