US offers concession on Iraq handover

[papau]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1062258,00.html

US offers concession on Iraq handover

Agencies
Monday October 13, 2003

The United States today offered its opponents on the UN security council a concession over when it would hand power to Iraqis in a further attempt to draw in international troops and money to bolster its occupation.<snip>

Today's US draft resolution, seen by the Associated Press, instead offers a timetable to a timetable for the eventual transfer. If passed it would require the US-appointed governing council to submit a programme for the drafting of a new constitution and holding democratic elections by December 15. <snip>

Earlier drafts of the resolution that had not mentioned any timetable for elections or a new constitution were the subject of extensive negotiations but were not put to a vote. It is unclear how far the new draft's approach will go towards assuaging other council members' concerns. <snip>

It also addresses concerns from the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, who had demanded a lead role for the organisation in post-war Iraq. The draft says the UN "should strengthen its vital role in Iraq" and could help to restore representative government. The Bush administration launched a review of the resolution after disagreements from council diplomats and Mr Annan's statements. <snip>

[hang a left]

1. Betcha a buck.....it is dead in the water

[papau]

2. Maybe not - but I would not expect "donors" until folks see the schedule

that they are scheduled to announce on Dec 15

:-)

[Mikimouse]

3. I smell something...probably a rat

This does not sound quite right. Too many possibilities for us to skate away and leave everyone else holding the bag. A timetable for a timetable? And then, what? "Oh, rats, we're so sorry, that darned old Iraqi council doesn't have enough surviving members to carry on their work, so we'll have to appoint a new one", and on and on and on, while the UN is sucked dry and others fight the Iraqi uprising. We walk away laughing, having weakened the UN and along with it any other nation that could possibly have challenged for economic competition. Easy domination, cheaply won. (cynicism off)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. More like a non-concession

"Security council members led by France have refused to give UN sanction to the occupation - which would be the first stage of a process intended to bring on board troops from countries such as India and Pakistan - unless the US sets a clear date for the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis."


"it would require the US-appointed governing council to submit a programme for the drafting of a new constitution and holding democratic elections by December 15."


So what is the clear date for transfering sovereignty to the Iraqis? :eyes:

[MaineDem]

5. Part of the EU's donation?

They voted today to give $300M + to Iraq's reconstruction predicated on a timetable for handing control back to Iraqis and the UN being involved. I would assume that has something to do with this.

[Neutrino]

6. Facing the fact that there is simply no money to keep troops

in Iraq past March 04. With that date fast arriving, I think that the
Admin has played out its string, and is forced to make concessions.
That also doesn't mean that the UN and Europe won't still let Bush
twist in the wind til he screams Uncle.

[hadrons]

7. "...offers a timetable to a timetable for the eventual transfer...."

pathetic; does Bush & Co. think the UN is as stupid as Republican voters or corporate media reporters

[VolcanoJen]

8. Kick!

:dem: