YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

The World

U.S. Yields, Offers to Set Deadline on Iraq

In an effort to win support at the U.N. for a resolution on postwar governance, America would require a timetable by Dec. 15.

October 14, 2003|Maggie Farley and Sonni Efron | Times Staff Writers

UNITED NATIONS — In a major concession to win international support in Iraq, the United States plans to introduce a new Security Council resolution today that gives the Iraqi Governing Council until Dec. 15 to set a timetable for holding elections and writing a new constitution.

U.S. officials had vigorously resisted including deadlines in previous resolutions, but they apparently bowed to demands from France, Germany and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the U.S.-led administration quickly transfer power to Iraqis to end growing violence against the occupation.

Addressing demands for a quick return to self-rule, the draft proposes to recognize the Governing Council as the entity that would "embody the sovereignty" of Iraq until an elected government is established. But legal experts and diplomats questioned whether granting sovereignty while retaining authority as the occupying power is legally possible -- or just a linguistic twist to finesse council members' demands.

The revised draft, which Secretary of State Colin L. Powell sent to most of the council's foreign ministers over the weekend, is a bid to win more troops and international aid at an important donors conference at the end of the month.

Initial reaction from the 15-member council was largely positive Monday. A few council members expressed some reservations, saying the draft excluded the U.N. from playing a leading role in rebuilding Iraq and did not give the Iraqis any real authority.

But France, the resolution's leading critic, called the U.S. draft "a step in the right direction, to [give] the Iraqis the feeling that they have their future again in their hands."

That sentiment was echoed by Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador to the U.N., who said the new version "represents an important step forward," but he added that he would like to see further amendments giving the U.N. "a central, pivotal, fundamental role."

German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said he wanted to discuss how the Governing Council would "embody" sovereignty, "what it means and what the legal implication is of that."

Even though the draft authorizes a multinational force under U.S. command, few troops are expected to come from council nations. But the U.S. hopes that U.N. approval will encourage other undecided countries -- including Bangladesh and India -- to send soldiers.

Under the latest draft, the U.S. would report to the Security Council every six months on progress toward handing power to the Iraqis. The council would review the operation after a year -- with the option to withdraw its endorsement of a multinational force if it doesn't like the progress, a U.S. official said.

In language that appeared deliberately ambiguous, the resolution declares that the Governing Council "will embody the sovereignty of the state of Iraq" until an internationally recognized representative government is established.

It also makes clear that the U.S.-led administration has overall authority and retains the responsibilities of an occupying power, though it emphasizes that power's "temporary nature."

"We make a distinction between the concept of sovereignty on the one hand and the exercise of specific authorities and governmental functions," said U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte. "The sovereignty of Iraq resides in the state of Iraq. But the Coalition Provisional Authority is temporarily exercising certain authorities and obligations of governance."

The resolution calls for a "vital" -- but not central -- U.N. role, although Annan has said that because of recent attacks on U.N. offices in Baghdad, he will send U.N. employees only if they are to play an "indispensable" role, and only when security is much improved. The resolution leaves room for a U.N. role to grow in the future "as circumstances permit."

The new formulation of Iraq's sovereignty -- granting it symbolically to the Governing Council while the U.S. retains actual authority -- has caused considerable confusion among Security Council members.

Several diplomats said they wanted clarification of what the interim administration's actual powers were: Could it renegotiate Iraq's debt or receive international loans? Could it refuse to accept Turkish troops on Iraqi soil, as some Governing Council members desire? Could it end the occupation?

The U.S.-led authority does remain in control, despite sovereignty being "embodied" in the Governing Council, said Ruth Wedgewood, a professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University and an advisor to the Bush administration. "We are still responsible under the law of armed conflict to maintain security and ensure there are minimum necessary goods, so it doesn't relieve us of our duty. We never claimed to be [the] sovereign" in Iraq.

" 'Embodies' is an ambiguous word," she added. "It is largely symbolic, but if it pleases the French and it pleases the Iraqis, then it's OK."

Los Angeles Times Articles