U.S. Faces Payback On Iraq Resolution

[struggle4progress]

As the United States struggles to win world support for its transfer of authority in Iraq, the Bush administration is running into diplomatic payback at the United Nations, senior U.N. diplomats said yesterday.
<snip>

Demands for further changes, the U.N. envoys said, reflect the diplomatic cost the United States incurred when it intervened in Iraq without U.N. approval: Security Council members want to help Iraq, but they are now wary of the Bush administration and do not want to let the United States easily get its way on this resolution without more detailed pledges of long-term intent.
<snip>

"The Americans are wounded. They're desperate to get a resolution and a number of Security Council members are not trying to make anything easy for them," the official added.
<snip>

The timing of a withdrawal of U.S.-led foreign forces remains an issue, despite a revised proposal stipulating that the multinational force would leave after completion of a constitution and elections for a permanent government, due by the end of 2005. But China has suggested that the new mandate expire after Iraq's first elections for an interim national assembly, tentatively scheduled for within seven months.
<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11055-2004Jun2.html

[FlemingsGhost]

1. How 'irrelevent" is the U.N. now, 'Pubs?

Payback is a... well, to quote Bar Bush, "rhymes with witch."

[sandnsea]

2. Security Council wants to help

I hope every Democrat in the country gets on the air waves with that sound byte all week. That's exactly what Kerry has said, the Security Council wants to help and they would with the right kind of foreign policy and diplomacy.

[cliss]

3. Ahh, interesting strategy.

The Old Holdout. They're going to stall and stall. They know there's an ELECTION looming on the horizon.

And guess who the new player is? China. I read recently that they're starting to get their fingers in the mess. They're demanding results, and they want to get involved.

Wonder why? We owe them a $lot $of $money. And they seem to be pissed at us.

So we're getting kicked around a little bit.

Just hang in there, UN. Something will bust, and it won't be you.

[rooboy]

4. Thank you for your call, Mr Powell...

the ambassador's out of town at the moment, but he'll be happy to discuss your proposal when he gets back in December.

[oblivious]

5. What if the resolution says troops out by end of 2005 and they don't go.

The SC knows there's not a damn thing they could do about it, so why vote for a resolution when they know that is exactly what the US intends to do? The US always find an excuse to twist UN resolutions when it comes to Iraq.

[ze_dscherman]

6. Transfer of authority

It's not about payback. It's about REAL transfer of authority and giving back sovereignity to Iraq, and not propping up a puppet regime and establishing permanent bases.

[dusty64]

7. The last shreds of the UN's

credibility is at stake. They can not simply bail out our evil regime who is desperately trying to stay in power. They need to demand an end to the handpicked puppet government in Iraq and a COMPLETE pull out of troops. NO military bases and TOTAL handover of control of "reconstruction" and resource extraction "contracts". This is a naked attempt for our junta to declare "victory" while continuing to pull the puppet strings and rape Iraq militarily and economically, while they scurry towards elecion here.