Appeasing the occupation
The US is likely to gain the approval of the Security Council for an amended resolution that would assure its control over Iraq, Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington
The 15-member United Nations Security Council is expected to approve today (22 May) a new resolution that would lift the 13-year old sanctions imposed on Iraq and grant the United States nearly full control of the occupied country's economic and political affairs. American and British officials made this announcement following lengthy negotiations and four drafts of the resolution.
US diplomats at the Security Council in New York said they originally expected to table the draft resolution for voting yesterday, but the voting was postponed after many countries presented more questions and sought clarifications over the draft's complicated details. US diplomats were hoping the resolution would be approved by all Security Council members, and were certain it would not be vetoed by any of the three permanent members that refused to join Washington's "coalition of the willing" -- namely Russia, France and China.
According to US officials all three countries have adopted a "pragmatic approach" in dealing with the resolution, seeking to avoid another falling out with the world's sole superpower similar to that which preceded the war against Iraq.
"Our hopes are quite high that there will be a large number of votes for this resolution," British UN Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said late Tuesday. "We are listening to every point that is being made (but) we can't meet them all on this time-scale, and they are still asking for further concessions, which I don't think the co- sponsors are going to make," he added.
Diplomats at the UN said however that France and Russia continued to raise serious reservations about the US resolution's failure to determine how long the occupation troops intend to remain in Iraq. The latest draft presented by the US on Tuesday stated that the Anglo- American occupation of Iraq would last until Iraqis establish an "internationally recognised, representative government". Washington had previously wanted its military presence in Iraq to be endorsed for a renewable 12-month period. Additionally, the word "independent" was used in the draft text to describe the work of a UN special representative in Iraq, instead of referring to him as "special coordinator".
Critics of the draft said, however, that the powers of the UN representative remained vague and undefined, although the draft would allow the representative to work with the US and Britain "to facilitate a process leading to an internationally recognised, representative government of Iraq".
The latest draft also mentioned for the first time that UN weapons inspectors would play a role sometime in the future in order to verify that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction. This clearly negates earlier US opposition that the inspectors were no longer needed in post-war Iraq.
In what US officials described as a further concession, the resolution now foresees phasing out the UN's humanitarian oil-for-food programme over a six-month period, rather than four months as proposed in the previous version. This measure was mainly aimed at meeting Russia's request to fulfill earlier contracts signed between the former Iraqi regime and Moscow in the framework of the UN-sponsored programme.
Meanwhile, all oil revenues would be deposited, according to the draft, in a special fund named "Development Fund for Iraq" at Iraq's Central Bank. The US accepted the appointment of an international advisory board that includes the UN, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The latest draft, unlike the original, stated that members of the board would be able to appoint auditors and monitor how oil revenues would be spent. According to diplomats, shielding Iraq's oil revenues and the Development Fund -- set-up to administer them until 2008 -- from any lawsuits, attachments or claims is the most controversial issue at hand. This is usual for a fund administered by the United Nations but not one over which the world body has no power.
What is troubling to international law experts is the contravention of the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the duties of occupying powers. Under the Geneva treaties, neither is supposed to create a new permanent government or commit Iraq to long-term contracts, such as oil exploration.
"The United States is asking the Security Council to authorise it to do a series of things that would otherwise violate international law under the guise of ending sanctions," Morton Hampering, a former State Department official and director of the Open Society Institute in Washington, told Reuters. "The purpose of this resolution is to relieve the United States of both its obligations and the limits of what it can do as an occupying power under international law by having the Security Council supersede the requirements of the Geneva Convention," he added.
With efforts to form an Iraqi government delayed, France and Russia still insist there has to be a process for the Security Council to review the resolution. American UN Ambassador John Negro Ponte indicated that his country might be ready to accept reviewing the resolution every 12 months, but vehemently rejected French demands to limit its presence in Iraq to one year.
Diplomats said one way around the apparent impasse might be to provide automatic renewal for the resolution after 12 months unless the council was to vote otherwise. Russian UN Ambassador Sergei Lavrov said Moscow hoped the new draft would clarify the Security Council's role in overseeing Iraqi reconstruction and satisfy demands in earlier resolutions that UN weapons inspectors certify Iraq's destruction of all chemical, biological and nuclear arms.
The clear turn in the position of Russia and other key Security Council members came after intense efforts by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, including visits to Moscow and Berlin, where both governments have strongly opposed the war against Iraq. While in Moscow, Powell said that what tied the US and Russia was much more than the issue of Iraq. "There are so many things that pull us together," he told a Russian television channel. "The desire now is to work together in the United Nations for a new resolution that will help the Iraqi people and not fight old battles. And the United States and the Russian Federation are pulled together by our economic interests, by our common commitment to democracy, and to the opening of free markets. We also want to help Russia with accession to the World Trade Organisation," he added.
US officials had said they were confident many countries that opposed the US-led war on Iraq would change their position as soon as the fighting was over. They believe these countries would seek lucrative contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq, and would no longer challenge Washington with all its economic and political influence.
