Washington wins a new resolution on Iraq but few countries are willing to provide cash or troops, writes Salah Hemeid The Security Council unanimously approved an American and British resolution authorising an American-led multinational force in Iraq and setting a 15 December deadline for the Iraqi Governing Council to lay out a timetable for the completion of a constitution and the creation of a fully democratic government. The vote, which followed months of negotiations to win an international mandate for what is largely a British-American vision of Iraq's political future, was welcomed by President George W Bush. "The world has an opportunity -- and a responsibility -- to help the Iraqi people build a nation that is stable, secure and free," he said. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said the resolution allows the international community "to move forward to restore full sovereignty back to the Iraqi people in a careful, deliberate way". Just when that transition will be over, though, remains unclear. The Iraqi Governing Council must submit a timetable by 15 December and allow it to be reviewed by the Security Council but no stipulation on the nature of the timetable was included in the resolution, leaving the Bush administration with the room for manoeuvre that it had sought. But the price of Washington's continued control is that most of the costs of occupying Iraq will still have to be borne by the American people. France, Germany and Russia, which had opposed earlier versions, made it clear that though they had voted in favour of Resolution 1511, it was still too flawed to spur any contributions of troops or money beyond current levels. The three countries were joined by Pakistan, a country Washington had hoped would contribute troops, in issuing a joint statement saying: "We believe," the statement read, "that the resolution should have gone further on two major issues: first, the role of the United Nations, in particular in the political process, and second, the pace of the transfer of responsibilities to the Iraqi people." Russian President Vladimir Putin criticised the resolution for not giving the UN a central role in post-war reconstruction and reiterated that Russia would not be sending peace-keepers. "This resolution increases the role and importance of the United Nations ... [but] it does not yet create conditions for full-fledged UN participation," Putin said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television. In comments published Friday French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said his country had backed the resolution in the hope that international unity -- and any movement towards the swift transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis -- would help ease Middle East tensions. "In the face of the spiral of violence, terrorism and tension throughout the Middle East it was important to clearly make the unity of the international community prevail," de Villepin told the French newspaper Le Monde. Ending a two-day summit in Belgium, European leaders on Friday welcomed the resolution and urged that Iraqis be given self- rule according to "a realistic timetable, thus making it clear that Western Europe can have no interest in any American -- or Western -- failure in Iraq." The EU leaders further pledged to ensure a "positive outcome" for this week's conference of UN member states on Iraq, which aims to gather funds for post-war reconstruction. For many commentators the resolution did little more than paper over fundamental differences between the US and many Security Council members. Though if some European nations balked others have moved towards providing the assistance Washington hopes will help bring security to war-weary Iraq and ease the burden on American-led forces there. Spain and Japan have promised to provide substantial sums to aid in Iraq's rebuilding while the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has welcomed the resolution, toning down earlier criticisms. The OIC argues that the passage of the resolution shows a desire on the part of Washington to heal international rifts over Iraq. A week ago the US was on the verge of withdrawing the resolution, a diplomatic disaster that would have underlined American isolation on the world stage and have raised question marks over the Congressional vote on the $87 billion funding request President Bush has made for Iraq and Afghanistan. Critics say the impact of the resolution will be limited, and perhaps not worth the price paid of exposing the deep-seated resentment felt in the international community over Washington's handling of the Iraq war. The final vote, while better than a withdrawal, or a resolution approved with numerous abstentions, is, they argue, too weak to be considered a victory. While few believe the resolution will attract the financial aid and troops the Bush administration wants it may yet provide an impetus to the 151-member conference, scheduled to take place in Madrid on 23 October, where donations will be gathered for Iraq's reconstruction. It remains to be seen, however, if the resolution can bring new hope to Iraqis that the worst of their difficulties are over, and that the global community will finally place the interests of the Iraqi people above other considerations.
