This is coming at a moment when the USA seems to loose control of the security in Iraq as the recent attacks clearly show. More soldiers are needed and this is not easy as the US army is already over stretched. In addition the continuous killing of US soldiers decreases the probability that Bush will be re-elected. The problem for Britain is similar and Tony Blair has already agreed to increase British spending in Iraq as the cost of occupation and reconstruction is going up. More British soldiers -possibly 5,000- will probably be needed. The cost increase is also due to the fact that the expected oil revenue does not materialise because of constant sabotage. It is now clear that the US and Britain planned well for the war but gave too little thought about the post-war period.
On September 4, 2003, it became clear that France and Germany were not too happy about the latest US and British draft UN Security Council resolution. The proposal would confirm the US political and military control of Iraq while the participants would send soldiers - to work under US command- and money. This seems a little unfair. France and Germany want the US and British to transfer immediately the political responsibility to an Iraqi government under full UN control.
On September 9, 2003, France and Germany made it clear that they will only back the new US draft of resolution if the proposal gives the UN full political control over the country and its oil industry, and if it includes a timetable to give back the power to Iraqis. France wants the UN to run Iraq for only a short time, as many Iraqis do not seem to distinguish between US or UN control of their country. Obviously President Bush will not want to go as far, he wants to keep full control while at the same time asking for foreign soldiers -to be killed instead of Americans- and money to rebuild what he destroyed.
On September 10, 2003, France, Russia and Germany proposed amendments to the project of resolution presented to the UN Security Council by the USA and Britain. The French and the Germans ask that the transfer of power from the US to an interim Iraqi government takes place as soon as possible as well a more important role for the UN. Russia asks for a timetable for the creation of a representative Iraqi government. The USA will not accept these amendments, as the aim is to put them out of control.
On September 13, 2003, a new row was emerging between the USA and Britain on one side and France on the other. In talks at the UN headquarters in Geneva the five permanent members of the UN Security Council tried to reach an agreement on a resolution that would allow more countries to participate in the occupation and financing of post-war Iraq. France, among other countries, wants something in exchange but the Americans, through their Secretary of State, Colin Powell, refused. It is the US that is asking for help -troops and money- from the international community because the number of casualties, the cost of the occupation of Iraq, and the growing unpopularity of the US soldiers in Iraq are creating problems to Bush and his wish to be re-elected. However the USA does not want to give anything in exchange. To get France's agreement the US will have to make important concessions. For the moment China and Russia are keeping quiet.
On September 18, 2003, President Chirac of France made it clear that he is not ready to vote for a US/British sponsored UN Security Council resolution on Iraq if the UN is not getting more control and power, and if it is not clear that power will be transferred to Iraqis in months, not years. The British EU commissioner, Christ Patten, supported this position. The US and Britain do not agree. Germany is ready to train Iraqi policemen but still refuses to send soldiers there.
On September 20, 2003, The Guardian summarised rather clearly the French
position in regard to a new UN Security Council on Iraq. France could agree
to it, and even send peacekeeping soldiers under US command if:
- The US and British troops were replaced by an international peacekeeping
force under UN authority - eventually led by an American.
- Full control power is transferred from the Americans to the Iraqis as
soon as possible that is within months, not years.
- The UN has primary political control.
- A constitutional convention is created NOW to be followed by free elections
next year.
This is a radical plan that will not please the Americans but, as The Guardian
says, at least it is a plan, whereas the Americans and British have none.
A compromise is possible but it is up to the Americans that must give in
a lot to be helped as they wish.
On September 20, 2003, Tony Blair met President Chirac of France and Chancellor Schroeder of Germany in Berlin. He tried to make them support the latest US/British project of resolution presented at the UN Security Council. He was not successful as Chirac, after the meeting, insisted that power should be transferred back to the Iraqis within the next few months, not years. All three agreed that the UN should play a key role in rebuilding Iraq but this is what is known in French as "a voeux pieux". In other words there is still a difference of opinion between these leaders and it will not be easily solved. The US still wants to run Iraq alone -with Blair as a boots licker- and France and others want the UN to do it. Germany would like to mend their links with Washington and Russia said that they do not intend to send any soldiers in Iraq even under an international peacekeeping force.
At the UN General Assembly, President Bush, will ask the international community to provide money and soldiers for the US occupation of Iraq. France said that they will not use their veto but will only support the latest US/British resolution on Iraq if it is clear that full power will be soon given back to the Iraqis and if the UN gets a bigger role in all the problems facing Iraq.
On September 26, 2003, Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, agreed to accelerate the handover of power to an Iraqi government. This is to avoid a veto from France and possibly Russia on their latest project of a new UN a Security Council resolution. The USA needs this to convince other countries to send soldiers and money to Iraq. Powell said that the US would set a 6 month deadline for, the 200 members Iraqi Constitutional Convention due to meet in October to draw a new constitution that would allow free elections.
On October 1, 2003, the USA took the chairmanship of the UN Security Council for one month. Its representative, John Negroponte, presented straightaway a new version of the latest project of resolution on Iraq. None of the suggestions presented by France, Germany and Russia was taken into consideration. Even the UN General Secretary, Kofi Annan, said that he was disappointed with the new text. In it there are no mention of a calendar to hand over full power to an Iraqi government, no clear indication of what the UN would be responsible for no mention of any transparent management of the money given to the Iraqis.
On October 2, 2003, the UN General Secretary, Kofi Annan, rejected the US plan for the transition period in Iraq and for getting money and military personnel from other countries. France, Russia and Germany are also not ready to support the US project of resolution as there is timetable to hand over full control to the Iraqis and that the UN should be given a central role in the meantime.
On October 8, 2003, the US is thinking of renouncing to its project of a new resolution asking for help -military and financial- for post-war Iraq. UN officials and many countries of the UN Security Council are against it. France, Germany and Russia, among others, are against the US timetable for handing back sovereignty to Iraq. Even the careful Kofi Annan criticised the US project of resolution. The US wants to keep full control over Iraq while the Iraqi Governing Council appointed by them would write a project of constitution to be adopted by referendum before elections can take place, and a permanent government chosen. This would take at least a year. Opponents to the resolution want a quicker transfer of power to a provisional Iraqi government and more power sharing with the UN playing a major role. The USA refuses these suggestions.
On October 13, 2003, the USA together with Britain and Spain presented a new version of the draft resolution that is already at the UN Security Council. In order to break the deadlock, the new resolution oblige the Iraqi Governing Council to produce, before December 15 2003, a timetable for the transfer of power to the Iraqis. The timetable should include target dates for the publication of a new constitution, for the elections and the transfer of power. A vote should take place this week giving legitimacy for the occupation of Iraq before the Madrid conference planned for next week where the USA hopes to convince the other countries to send soldiers as well as money. Russia will probably vote for the resolution but France and Germany will still be difficult to convince; the USA hopes that they will abstain and that France will not use its veto. This new project aims also to answer to the UN General Secretary's criticism.
On October 14, 2003, Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, said that he believed that the UN Security Council would approve the latest project of resolution. This project is in its third version, all changes having been made to induce countries like France, Germany and Russia not to oppose it. It is believed that these three countries will abstain but France and Russia should not use their veto. The USA and Britain hopes that its approval will allow other countries to promise soldiers and money at the two-day Iraq donor conference that is scheduled for October 26 in Madrid. However the French believe that setting a date only for when the Iraqi Governing Council must present a timetable for a new constitution and free elections is not enough. The French would like to know when the elections would take place.
On October 16, 2003, the UN Security Council voted unanimously for a new
resolution on Iraq. The resolution 1511 confirms the territorial integrity
of Iraq, authorises the presence of a international force in Iraq under
the provisional administration led by the Americans, asks the USA to transfer
full sovereignty as soon as possible to a representative Iraqi government,
asks the Iraqi Governing Council to decide the calendar for a new constitution
and for elections, and says that the presence of the UN must be increased.
France, Germany and Russia will no send troops. All the members of the UN
Security Council finally accepted this resolution after it was re-written
many times. The day before it was adopted France, Germany and Russia -with
China following Russia- had still some doubts, but finally a wording acceptable
was found.