The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] New US Draft Security Council Resolution

Thanks, Nathaniel. Here's some attempt to summarise what's in the new
draft, and how it differs from the earlier draft and the amendments
proposed by France, Germany and Syria (OP=operative paragraph,
PP=preambular paragraph. The various drafts are at, or in the list archives). The French
delegation is criticising the draft, but have promised not to veto it
Apologies in advance for details I've missed out.

 - The French proposal laid great stress on creating an International
Advisory and Monitoring Board for the Development Fund for Iraq. This was
in 1483, para 12, and there was a draft written by early June
( Can anybody shed some
light on what's going on with this? Is it connected with the French
objections to the provision for transfer of assets (OP 16 in the 3 sep
 - France also wanted to write the CPA out of the constitutional process.
Unsurprisingly, that hasn't turned up in the US draft
 - Syria's proposals have essentially been ignored
 - France's request that the UN initiate regional discussions over Iraq
hasn't been included

 - Note Kofi Annan's statement
( that he
isn't happy about the current proposals. A little surprising that he's
saying so in public.
 - "underscores...the temporary nature" of CPA authority (OP 5)
 - welcomes international support for Governing Council, creation of
preparatory constitutional committee and council of ministers (PP4, OP
 - asks governing council to provide a timetable for transfer of power,
with UN and CPA help (OP 9, 11)
 - urges CPA to transfer power as quickly as possible (OP 8)
 - there's a nicely beefed-up PP 4 "underscoring that the sovereignty of
Iraq resides in the state of Iraq, reaffirming the right of the Iraqi
people freely to determine their own political future and control their own
natural resources, reiterating its resolve that the day when Iraqis govern
themselves must come quickly"

 - Still refers a great deal to 1483, despite the French proposal that the
UN should expand its role beyond that.
 - asks the secretary general to carry out the program in his 17 July
report (OP4; this has already been dealt with by resolution 1500)
 - UN should "strengthen its vital role in Iraq" (OP 4). This was "play a
vital role". The word order in OP4 (was OP3) has been changed, which looks
like a deliberate fudge. The text now is:

Resolves that the [UN] should strengthen its vital role in Iraq, including
by providing humanitarian relief, promoting the economic reconstruction of
and conditions for sustainable development in Iraq, and advancing efforts
to restore and establish national and local institutions for representative
government, as set out in relevant paragraphs of resolutions 1483 (2003)
and 1500 (2003), and for this purpose encourages the Secretary General to
pursue the course of action outlined in paragraphs 98 and 99 of the Report
of the Secretary General of 17 July 2003 (S/2003/715);

The US can now read this as "should strengthen its vital set out
in 1483" - i.e. implement what's already been agreed. France can read it as
"should strenghten its vital role, set out in 1483" -i.e.
implement what's been agreed, and go beyond it. Or am I reading too much
into this?

 - authorises a multinational security force (para 13) and urges states to
contribute troops, etc (OP 14). Some rewording here, e.g. forces would now
be contributed "under this United Nations mandate", but doesn't seem to
have changed a great deal.
 - calls on neighbouring states to prevent terrorists and materials
supporting them from reaching Iraq (OP3); Syria didn't this because it
"implicitly accuses the neighbouring states of exporting terrorism".
Emphasises need for police and security forces (broadened from 'police
force' in 3 Sept draft)
 - condemns bombings of the UN, the Jordanese embassy, and the Najaf
mosque, and sympathises with the victims (OP1 & 2, PP 2)

 - Requests states to contribute financially (para 17), including at a
Donors Conference (para 18) and by transferring assets of the former regime
to the Development Fund for Iraq (para 20).
 - OP 19 "Calls upon Member States and concerned organisations to help meet
the needs of the Iraqi people by providing resources necessary for the
rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq's economic infrastructure"; I
can't see what this adds that hasn't been stated elsewhere

 - OP 15 baffles me:
        15. Decides that the Council shall review the requirements and mission of
the multinational forces referred to in paragraph 13 above when an
        internationally recognised, representative government is established by
the people of Iraq and assumes the responsibilities of the Authority;
   does this mean that they won't review it until the end of the transition
process? If not, why bother inserting it?
 - Secretary General will report on UN operations, including
constitution/elections, at unspecified intervals (OP12) (as requested by
French, except that they wanted a time limit)
 - US will report on military matters at least every 6 months

Daniel O'Huiginn
Queens' College, Cambridge
07789 260207

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]