UN control over Iraq? (split thread)

France and Germany seek full UN control over Iraq

September 10, 2003
France and Germany will back the new UN resolution on Iraq sought by President George Bush only if the proposal gives the UN full political rule over the country.

The countries have also demanded a clear programme for returning power to Iraqis.

Paris wants the UN to run Iraq temporarily on the model of Afghanistan, but insists its proposals do not represent an attempt to settle scores over the unilateral action by the US and Britain in Iraq.

Mr Bush has already tabled a draft resolution to leave US in full control of the coalition military, and give the UN only limited authority.

French sources insist they will approach the talks constructively, and not attempt to humiliate the US over its inability to restore order after the invasion.

-more-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C1038921%2C00.html

Thursday, 28 August, 2003
The United States has signalled for the first time that it might accept a UN-mandated multinational force in Iraq provided it is led by an American.

Washington insists it will not yield command and control of the US-led force in Iraq.

But the BBC’s Justin Webb in Washington says the United States now appears to be softening its position in the face of international pressure and domestic criticism.

Countries which opposed the US-led war in Iraq - notably France, Germany and Russia - have demanded a greater UN role, refusing to contribute troops to the current occupying force.

Mr Annan warned that the United States would find it “very difficult” to get a new UN Security Council resolution adopted on expanding military forces on the ground if it failed to boost the UN’s role.

Many countries have expressed a willingness to assist in Iraq, but they do not want the stigma of serving under an occupying force which has yet to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

As they two articles state myvoice there was a willingness by many countries to send forces into Iraq but they did not want to be under U.S. command but UN command which meant turning over control to the UN as France and Germany pushed the U.S. to do. Not only were they capable but they also wanted to, but again Bush did not want to cede control to the UN. These are facts that can’t be spun or disputed, everything is on the table, the push for UN control was there, Bush said no.

^ Good try UTD. But no cigar.

Late August and early September are not the same thing as April or May.

Further, under discussion at the time was a ** US proposed resolution ** seeking ** greater ** UN involvement in post-war Iraq. The trade-off the French wanted was control and command over 130,000 US troops. Do you have any question in your mind whatsoever that a US President should have dismissed this idea immediately? In my mind, to agree to such a thing would be close to an impeachable offense.

I'm quite certain that if France or Germany had agreed to send 10,000 or 20,000 of ** their ** troops to Iraq and if ** only ** those 10,000 to 20,000 troops would have been under UN command and control, the US would have had no problem.

Read it how you would like myvoice, it’s really clear though that the fact is that Bush rejected the UN taking control of Iraq, perhaps the cigar smoke is getting in your eyes? The last paraghaph that I have cut and pasted here should be sent by Bush to any American who’s had a friend or family memeber killed in Iraq.

U.S. rejects idea by France, Germany on U.N. role

UNITED NATIONS — President Bush said Wednesday he is willing to compromise on a United Nations resolution that would expand the U.N.'s role in Iraq, but U.S. officials privately rejected a proposal by France and Germany that would establish U.N. authority over reconstruction efforts.

Just days before a crucial meeting Saturday in Geneva among the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, Bush told reporters at the White House that he is “open for suggestions” by France, Germany and other Security Council members.

Bush said he was confident a compromise could be reached because of the high stakes for Iraq’s future. Referring to intense opposition to the war by France and Germany, Bush said, “Let us not get caught up in past bickering. … A peaceful Iraq is in the world’s interest.”

**But at the United Nations, U.S. diplomats dismissed a proposal by France and Germany that would give the U.N. expanded authority over reconstruction of Iraq. “Null and void,” said one U.S. official who requested anonymity but wanted to emphasize that the proposal had no chance of U.S. agreement. **

Last week, the administration began pushing for a resolution that would send more international troops to Iraq and ease the burden on nearly 140,000 U.S. troops. Currently, only 20,000 forces from other countries have joined the mission, which the United States insists must remain under a U.S. commander.

U.S. diplomats said the language offered by France and Germany would essentially turn over Iraq’s civilian reconstruction to Security Council diplomats. A French diplomat said the goal was to transfer authority more rapidly to the Iraqi Governing Council.

The draft also would give the U.N. more power in setting the timetable for elections and turning control over to Iraqis.

U.S. officials have been more receptive to a version proposed by Russia, which they said would give the United Nations a more limited role. Russia also opposed the war, but has been very helpful behind the scenes in crafting the new resolution, U.S. officials said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-10-un-role-usat_x.htm

**Bush rejects expanding UN role in Iraq **

WASHINGTON The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials say.

Instead, the officials said Wednesday, the United States will widen its effort to enlist other countries to assist the occupation forces in Iraq, which are dominated by the 139,000 U.S. troops there.

In addition to American forces in Iraq, there are 21,000 troops representing 18 countries. At present, 11,000 of that number are from Britain. The United States plans to seek larger numbers to help, especially with relief supplies that are coming from another dozen countries.

Administration officials said that in spite of the difficult security situation in Iraq, there was a consensus in the administration that it would be better to work with these countries than to involve the United Nations or countries that opposed the war and are now eager to exercise influence in a postwar Iraq.

"“The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, ‘We really need to make Iraq an international operation,’” an administration official said. “You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but, right now, the situation in Iraq is not that dire.”

http://www.iht.com/articles/106436.html