The UN security council ended one of the most acrimonious diplomatic wrangles in recent years yesterday by voting to provide a UN mandate for the US-British force in Iraq.
France had been thought likely to abstain and Syria to vote against but in the end the vote was 15-0.
The US and Britain hailed the vote as a great achievement, but France and Germany only grudgingly gave their support.
The impact of the resolution is symbolic. In theory, it paves the way for other countries to send troops and money to Iraq to bolster the hard-pressed US and British forces. In reality, few countries will be prepared to do so until power is transferred from the US-British occupation force to the Iraqis.
The US president, George Bush, thanked the security council for passing the resolution. ”A democratic Iraq will stand as an example to all the Middle East,” he said.
The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, who lobbied hard for the resolution over the previous 24 hours, said: ”We have come together to help the Iraqi people and put all of our differences of the past in the past.”
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, said: ”The process has been difficult, but the outcome is a clear demonstration of the will of all the members of the security council to place the interest of the Iraqi people above all other considerations.”
Earlier this year, in the run-up to the war with Iraq, the US and Britain failed to win the support of France for a resolution that would have legitimised war against Iraq. Relations between France and the US — and Britain — have been strained since.
France and Germany initially held out against this new resolution and pressed for a clear timetable for the transfer of power from the US and British forces to an elected Iraqi government.
But France and Germany found themselves outmanoeuvred. On Tuesday the US managed to bring Russia and China round by agreeing to a small change in the wording of the resolution that emphasised that sovereignty will eventually go to the Iraqis.
With so much left unresolved, western diplomats predict that a fresh resolution will be needed soon to set out a more detailed role for the UN in the political process in Iraq.
Yesterday’s resolution demands that the Iraqi governing council, the transitional body that represents Iraqis, sets out by December 15 a timetable for the transfer of power from the US and Britain to an elected Iraqi government. But the resolution itself contains no timetable.
The most senior British diplomat in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said yesterday he expected power to be handed over by the end of next year.
Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said last night he was more optimistic about getting bigger cash pledges at next week’s Iraqi donors conference in Madrid. But Germany and France made clear that support for the revised UN text did not mean a more generous approach at the conference.
”We think that conditions today are not there for material or military aid,” said the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin. Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, called the resolution ”an important step in the right direction”.
France is expected to refuse to send any troops or offer any more money in Madrid. Germany is holding out against sending troops but is wavering over financial support.
Schröder said Germany, France and Russia found their concerns about rebuilding Iraq were reflected in Washington’s latest draft, but differences remained.
Because of that they were not in a position to ”engage militarily or beyond that, with material support”.
Earlier this week both countries said that eurozone budget deficit constraints would limit any cash contribution they could make.
The EU will contribute â,¬200-million next year from its budget, and Britain is to give â,¬375-million in 2004 and 2005. Spain is expected to pledge about â,¬250-million. – Guardian Unlimited Â