WP: Three Countries Give U.S. a Key Iraq Concession

[kskiska]

Wednesday, October 15, 2003; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 14 -- France, Russia and Germany on Tuesday dropped their demands that the United States grant the United Nations a central role in Iraq's reconstruction and yield power to a provisional Iraqi government in the coming months.

The move constituted a major retreat by the Security Council's chief antiwar advocates, and signaled their renewed willingness to consider the merits of a U.S. resolution aimed at conferring greater international legitimacy of its military occupation of Iraq.

All three countries seem willing to accept a resolution that would retain U.S. authority over Iraq's political future while extending only a symbolic measure of sovereignty to Iraqis. But a major sticking point remains: The three governments made a number of new demands, including setting a timetable for ending the U.S. military occupation in Iraq and strengthening the Security Council's role in monitoring Iraq's political transition.

Still, the shift by the United States' toughest critics in the 15-nation council has placed the Bush administration within reach of a diplomatic victory a week after it was on the verge of withdrawing the resolution, officials here said. Although U.S. officials acknowledge adopting the resolution is unlikely to bring new troops or resources from other countries, they say the U.N. imprimatur would help legitimize the U.S. occupation and the Iraqi Governing Council -- and help defuse opposition in Iraq.

U.S. officials were hoping Tuesday night to put the matter to a vote on the Security Council before President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell leave Thursday for Asia on separate trips. The Bush administration refused to incorporate the French, Russian and German demands for a timetable for the transfer of power in a revised text presented to the council last night -- and indicated the United States would soon call their bluff.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25105-2003Oct14.html

[PartyPooper]

1. Why did they cave in?

What's in it for France, Germany, and Russia?

[Mikimouse]

3. I'm not sure that they have caved

The last part of the snippet say that * and company had not incorporated the requested additions to the proposal. To me, this says that the proposal doen'thave a snowball's chance of passing. I suspect that the Germans, French, and Russians are buying time, waiting to see just how the rest of the international community will respond. I also suspect that there are negotiations being conducted behind the scenes among those three, to establish trade treaties, mutual aid treaties, etc. They have too much at stake to allow * too much freedom in Iraq. Just my opinion.

[0007]

4. Not indeed

They just put the clock on 'em! The pressure will come as the clock ticks down.

[Sagan]

2. they "caved" because they know it won't fly...

Note:

"The three governments made a number of new demands, including setting a timetable for ending the U.S. military occupation in Iraq and strengthening the Security Council's role in monitoring Iraq's political transition."

and

"Although U.S. officials acknowledge adopting the resolution is unlikely to bring new troops or resources from other countries, they say the U.N. imprimatur would help legitimize the U.S. occupation and the Iraqi Governing Council -- and help defuse opposition in Iraq."

The first quote shows what the 3 powers want in return for their concession... and they won't be satisfied with vagaries. The second quote demonstrates remarkable naivete on the part of the misAdministration. Not that THAT is anything new.

[moondust]

5. "...help legitimize the U.S. occupation"

Bad idea. How about a vote to legitimize Hitler's invasion of Poland?

[Gloria]

6. I fail to see how "the U.N. imprimatur" would defuse any opposition...

considering that it blew up a UN headquarters and killed Mello....then they were saying that because of the sanctions authorized by the UN, the UN isn't them most popular entity. Richard Holbrooke has also said that any international force should not be "blue hats" (UN) but personnel from countries under the leadership of Norway (which has had good relations with Iraq in the past)

[Aidoneus]

7. their craven cave-in on this is irrelevant, really

their apparently now-abandoned approach is wrong anyway--Iraqis aren't better off if it's Anglo-American militants shooting them, or some assortment of Turks, Koreans, and Germans wearing "blue hats" doing the dirty..

Their position should be for the immediate end to the criminal occupation (which these hypocrites were all falling over themselves to celebrate and "legitimize" after the "war" that they supposedly opposed), all foreign troops immediately removed from Iraq, and all power immediately turned over to geniune Iraqi control at all levels--not US/UK, "UN", or any other veiled mechanism for the takeover of Iraqi services and resources by foreign corporations.

On the side, it is really atrocious that these opportunistic hypocrites are referred to as the "antiwar advocates".

[Flying_Pig]

8. Russia caved, France and Germany followed. Daddy Bush was

just in Russia to discuss what with Putin? A way to save his boy's ass? France and Germany without a big gun like Russia behind them, would look like spoilers if they didn't follow Russia. I wonder what Daddy promised Putin? I knew something was up, when Germany agreed to let France represent it at this meeting. Schroder is back home trying to keep his Greens from rebeling.

[unclejimbo]

9. Anti-US not always a good stance

Dag!

Why does every decision have to be based on whether it hurts the Bushies?

we get more positive attention when we move toward solutions to problems, like a legitimate Iraq, rather than simply hope the Bushies fail.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[silverchair]

10. does shrub

always get his way? if the UN does cave, this sucks.