Foreign Correspondence

[Amaunet]

I just got in and took a brief look.

You mean regarding Iraq, right?

How do you take away the concept of occupation when U.N. envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, openly acknowledged considerable U.S. pressure in the choices?

You don’t have to ‘cooperate’ on 'sensitive offensive operations' involving multinational troops when you have handpicked the person you are ‘cooperating’ with in these matters. In addition the resolution does not grant the Iraqis the right to veto military operations. Thus, both sides will act out a semblance of dialogue but any real collaboration is impossible without the Iraqis having the right to veto which doesn’t matter anyway because prime minister Iyad Alawi was selected by the United States.

The UN resolution is a farce, easily seen through; the American public will buy it 100%.

-Am

Unanimous U.N. Resolution on Iraq Wins Time for New Iraqi Government, Enhances Its International Stature

By Robert H. Reid Associated Press Writer
Published: Jun 8, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The U.N. resolution approved by the 15-member Security Council buys time for the new Iraqi government - boosting its international stature as it struggles to win acceptance and cope with a security crisis at home.
Tuesday's unanimous approval of the U.S.-British resolution, revised four times over the past two weeks, won't mean an immediate end to the threat posed by terrorists and insurgents.

Nor will it guarantee seamless dealings among the disparate groups represented in the U.N.-appointed interim government that takes power June 30 for seven months. For example, Shiite and Kurdish members of the government are already at odds over constitutional issues even before they have taken power.

However, the resolution grants the interim government an international legitimacy that its predecessor - the Iraqi Governing Council - never enjoyed. That's not bad for a short-term government headed by a CIA favorite, cobbled together by the Americans and their Iraqi allies and endorsed by a U.N. envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, who openly acknowledged considerable U.S. pressure in the choices.

"The significance of this resolution for us, for the Iraqis, is really to take away the concept of occupation, which I would say was the main reasons for many of the difficulties that we have been going through since liberation," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Tuesday in New York.

To win council approval, the Americans and the British made some concessions, as they did tactically to bring peace to Fallujah and Najaf. Most notably, they agreed that the Iraqis would control their own, limited security forces.

The Americans also agreed that the mandate for the multinational force will expire "upon the completion of the political process" - or 2006, earlier if the Iraqis so request.

With the international stamp of approval, the new government will be in a better position to curry support among fellow Arab regimes, most of which kept the old Governing Council at arms length because they did not want to be perceived by their own publics as dealing with an agent of the U.S. occupation.

It will also be in a stronger position to seek help from major powers such as France and Germany that opposed the war, although it is unlikely any of them will offer peacekeepers to take the burden off the 138,000 American soldiers and the 24,000 troops from coalition partners.

Nevertheless, many countries that were reluctant to cooperate with the American-run occupation administration could ante up more in terms of economic support, expertise and training of young Iraqis since they would be dealing with an internationally recognized, sovereign state.

Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer will try to translate the newfound international goodwill into tangible support when he meets with President Bush and the leaders of the Group of Eight nations Wednesday at their summit in Sea Island, Ga.

All that will resonate among Iraqis - who are more connected with the world now through the Internet and satellite television than they were during years of Saddam Hussein's imposed isolation.

International acceptance may not win over hard-liners such as Shiite radical Muqtada al-Sadr or the shadowy men of the Sunni Muslim insurgency. But it will play to Iraqis' deep sense of pride and will likely win points for the government among the silent majority that wants an end to violence and lawlessness - as well as to the occupation.

If the resolution succeeds in boosting the government's image at home, it would buy the new administration time to grapple with its most compelling problem - security.

Under the final version of the resolution, Iraqi leaders will have control of their own security forces. Washington and the interim government promised to cooperate on "sensitive offensive operations" involving multinational troops.

But the resolution does not grant the Iraqis the right to veto military operations as had been demanded by France and Germany. Those countries wanted to avoid a repeat of the U.S. siege of Fallujah last April in which hundreds of Iraqis died and which created a wave of public outrage against the occupation.

It appears unlikely that the new government can succeed in eliminating insurgency and lawlessness during its brief time in office. However, it must reduce the violence to a level in order to permit national elections by Jan. 31 as planned.

Those elections are a key demand of the country's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani. Most Iraqi Shiites, who form an estimated 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million people, assume they will control any elected government.

The aging cleric has made clear he will not tolerate any delays in the January balloting.

AP-ES-06-08-04 1658EDT

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBRWFXH8VD.html