Un Security Council Resolution 1546

[Dav]

1. Endorses the formation of a sovereign Interim Government of Iraq' date=' as presented on 1 June 2004, which will assume full responsibility and authority by 30 June 2004 for governing Iraq while refraining from taking any actions affecting Iraq’s destiny beyond the limited interim period until an elected Transitional Government of Iraq !@#$%^&*umes office as envisaged in paragraph four below;

 

“2. Welcomes that, also by 30 June 2004, the occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and that Iraq will reassert its full sovereignty;

 

“3. Reaffirms the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine their own political future and to exercise full authority and control over their financial and natural resources;

 

“4. Endorses the proposed timetable for Iraq’s political transition to democratic government including:

 

(a) formation of the sovereign Interim Government of Iraq that will assume governing responsibility and authority by 30 June 2004;

 

( convening of a national conference reflecting the diversity of Iraqi society; and

 

© holding of direct democratic elections by 31 December 2004 if possible, and in no case later than 31 January 2005, to a Transitional National !@#$%^&*embly, which will, inter alia, have responsibility for forming a Transitional Government of Iraq and drafting a permanent cons!@#$%^&*ution for Iraq leading to a cons!@#$%^&*utionally elected government by 31 December 2005;

 

“5. Invites the Government of Iraq to consider how the convening of an international meeting could support the above process, and notes that it would welcome such a meeting to support the Iraqi political transition and Iraqi recovery, to the benefit of the Iraqi people and in the interest of stability in the region;

 

“6. Calls on all Iraqis to implement these arrangements peaceably and in full, and on all States and relevant organizations to support such implementation;

 

“7. Decides that in implementing, as cir-*BAD WORD*-stances permit, their mandate to assist the Iraqi people and government, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the United Nations !@#$%^&*istance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), as requested by the Government of Iraq, shall:

 

(a) play a leading role to:

 

(i) assist in the convening, during the month of July 2004, of a national conference to select a Consultative Council;

 

(ii) advise and support the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, as well as the Interim Government of Iraq and the Transitional National !@#$%^&*embly, on the process for holding elections;

 

(iii)promote national dialogue and consensus-building on the drafting of a national cons!@#$%^&*ution by the people of Iraq;

 

( and also:

 

(i) advise the Government of Iraq in the development of effective civil and social services;

 

(ii) contribute to the coordination and delivery of reconstruction, development, and humanitarian !@#$%^&*istance;

 

(iii)promote the protection of human rights, national reconciliation, and judicial and legal reform in order to strengthen the rule of law in Iraq; and

 

(iv) advise and assist the Government of Iraq on initial planning for the eventual conduct of a comprehensive census;

 

 

“8. Welcomes ongoing efforts by the incoming Interim Government of Iraq to develop Iraqi security forces including the Iraqi armed forces (hereinafter referred to as “Iraqi security forces”), operating under the authority of the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors, which will progressively play a greater role and ultimately assume full responsibility for the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq;

 

 

“9. Notes that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the incoming Interim Government of Iraq and therefore reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force under unified command established under resolution 1511 (2003), having regard to the letters annexed to this resolution;

 

 

“10. Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution expressing, inter alia, the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force and setting out its tasks, including by preventing and deterring terrorism, so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in !@#$%^&*isting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and program for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities;

 

 

“11. Welcomes, in this regard, the letters annexed to this resolution stating, inter alia, that arrangements are being put in place to establish a security partnership between the sovereign Government of Iraq and the multinational force and to ensure coordination between the two, and notes also in this regard that Iraqi security forces are responsible to appropriate Iraqi ministers, that the Government of Iraq has authority to commit Iraqi security forces to the multinational force to engage in operations with it, and that the security structures described in the letters will serve as the fora for the Government of Iraq and the multinational force to reach agreement on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations, and will ensure full partnership between Iraqi security forces and the multinational force, through close coordination and consultation;

 

 

“12. Decides further that the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or twelve months from the date of this resolution, and that this mandate shall expire upon the completion of the political process set out in paragraph four above, and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq;

 

 

“13. Notes the intention, set out in the annexed letter from the United States Secretary of State, to create a distinct en!@#$%^&*y under unified command of the multinational force with a dedicated mission to provide security for the United Nations presence in Iraq, recognizes that the implementation of measures to provide security for staff members of the United Nations system working in Iraq would require significant resources, and calls upon Member States and relevant organizations to provide such resources, including contributions to that en!@#$%^&*y;

 

 

“14. Recognizes that the multinational force will also assist in building the capability of the Iraqi security forces and ins!@#$%^&*utions, through a program of recruitment, training, equipping, mentoring, and monitoring;

 

 

“15. Requests Member States and international and regional organizations to contribute !@#$%^&*istance to the multinational force, including military forces, as agreed with the Government of Iraq, to help meet the needs of the Iraqi people for security and stability, humanitarian and reconstruction !@#$%^&*istance, and to support the efforts of UNAMI;

 

 

“16. Emphasizes the importance of developing effective Iraqi police, border enforcement, and the Facilities Protection Service, under the control of the Interior Ministry of Iraq, and, in the case of the Facilities Protection Service, other Iraqi ministries, for the maintenance of law, order, and security, including combating terrorism, and requests Member States and international organizations to assist the Government of Iraq in building the capability of these Iraqi ins!@#$%^&*utions;

 

 

“17. Condemns all acts of terrorism in Iraq, reaffirms the obligations of Member States under resolutions 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001, 1267 (1999) of 15 October 1999, 1333 (2000) of 19 December 2000, 1390 (2002) of 16 January 2002, 1455 (2003) of 17 January 2003, and 1526 (2004) of 30 January 2004, and other relevant international obligations with respect, inter alia, to terrorist activities in and from Iraq or against its citizens, and specifically reiterates its call upon Member States to prevent the transit of terrorists to and from Iraq, arms for terrorists, and financing that would support terrorists, and re-emphasizes the importance of strengthening the cooperation of the countries of the region, particularly neighbours of Iraq, in this regard;

 

 

“18. Recognizes that the Interim Government of Iraq will assume the primary role in coordinating international !@#$%^&*istance to Iraq;

 

 

“19. Welcomes efforts by MemberStates and international organizations to respond in support of requests by the Interim Government of Iraq to provide technical and expert !@#$%^&*istance while Iraq is rebuilding administrative capacity;

 

 

“20. Reiterates its request that Member States, international financial ins!@#$%^&*utions and other organizations strengthen their efforts to assist the people of Iraq in the reconstruction and development of the Iraqi economy, including by providing international experts and necessary resources through a coordinated programme of donor !@#$%^&*istance;

 

 

“21. Decides that the prohibitions related to the sale or supply to Iraq of arms and related materiel under previous resolutions shall not apply to arms or related materiel required by the Government of Iraq or the multinational force to serve the purposes of this resolution, stresses the importance for all States to abide strictly by them, and notes the significance of Iraq’s neighbours in this regard, and calls upon the Government of Iraq and the multinational force each to ensure that appropriate implementation procedures are in place;

 

 

“22. Notes that nothing in the preceding paragraph affects the prohibitions on or obligations of States related to items specified in paragraphs 8 and 12 of resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 or activities described in paragraph 3 (f) of resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, and reaffirms its intention to revisit the mandates of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency;

 

 

“23. Calls onMemberStates and international organizations to respond to Iraqi requests to assist Iraqi efforts to integrate Iraqi veterans and former militia members into Iraqi society;

 

 

“24. Notes that, upon dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the funds in the Development Fund for Iraq shall be disbursed solely at the direction of the Government of Iraq, and decides that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be utilized in a transparent and equitable manner and through the Iraqi budget including to satisfy outstanding obligations against the Development Fund for Iraq, that the arrangements for the depositing of proceeds from export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas established in paragraph 20 of resolution 1483 (2003) shall continue to apply, that the International Advisory and Monitoring Board shall continue its activities in monitoring the Development Fund for Iraq and shall include as an additional full voting member a duly qualified individual designated by the Government of Iraq and that appropriate arrangements shall be made for the continuation of deposits of the proceeds referred to in paragraph 21 of resolution 1483 (2003);

 

 

“25. Decides further that the provisions in the above paragraph for the deposit of proceeds into the Development Fund for Iraq and for the role of the IAMB shall be reviewed at the request of the Transitional Government of Iraq or twelve months from the date of this resolution, and shall expire upon the completion of the political process set out in paragraph four above;

 

 

“26. Decides that, in connection with the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors shall assume the rights, responsibilities and obligations relating to the Oil-for-Food Programme that were transferred to the Authority, including all operational responsibility for the Programme and any obligations undertaken by the Authority in connection with such responsibility, and responsibility for ensuring independently authenticated confirmation that goods have been delivered, and further decides that, following a 120-day transition period from the date of adoption of this resolution, the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors shall assume responsibility for certifying delivery of goods under previously prioritized contracts, and that such certification shall be deemed to cons!@#$%^&*ute the independent authentication required for the release of funds !@#$%^&*ociated with such contracts, consulting as appropriate to ensure the smooth implementation of these arrangements;

 

 

“27. Further decides that the provisions of paragraph 22 of resolution 1483 (2003) shall continue to apply, except that the privileges and immunities provided in that paragraph shall not apply with respect to any final judgement arising out of a contractual obligation entered into by Iraq after 30 June 2004;

 

 

“28. Welcomes the commitments of many creditors, including those of the Paris Club, to identify ways to reduce substantially Iraq’s sovereign debt, calls on Member States, as well as internationa1 and regional organizations, to support the Iraq reconstruction effort, urges the international financial ins!@#$%^&*utions and bilateral donors to take the immediate steps necessary to provide their full range of loans and other financial !@#$%^&*istance and arrangements to Iraq, recognizes that the Interim Government of Iraq will have the authority to conclude and implement such agreements and other arrangements as may be necessary in this regard, and requests creditors, ins!@#$%^&*utions and donors to work as a priority on these matters with the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors;

 

 

“29. Recalls the continuing obligations of Member States to freeze and transfer certain funds, !@#$%^&*ets, and economic resources to the Development Fund for Iraq in accordance with paragraphs 19 and 23 of resolution 1483 (2003) and with resolution 1518 (2003) of 24 November 2003;

 

 

“30. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within three months from the date of this resolution on UNAMI operations in Iraq, and on a quarterly basis thereafter on the progress made towards national elections and fulfilment of all UNAMI’s responsibilities;

 

 

“31. Requests that the United States, on behalf of the multinational force, report to the Council within three months from the date of this resolution on the efforts and progress of this force, and on a quarterly basis thereafter;

 

 

“32. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”[/quote']

 

What are your opinions. I suspected this would be passed as it brings more pover back to the UN and moves closer to resolving thier anti america problems.

[Manus Celer Dei]

Being the skeptic I am, I have a sneaking suspicion that this won't change the situation in Iraq an awful lot. I also suspect that Coalition forces will find some reason to stay in Iraq despite paragraph 12.

[BG]

“2. Welcomes that, also by 30 June 2004, the occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and that Iraq will reassert its full sovereignty;

 

Concerning Paragraph 2: "LOL YEA RIGHT!!!11"

[Paine]

we'll just have to wait and see.

[A Soldier]

Being the skeptic I am, I have a sneaking suspicion that this won't change the situation in Iraq an awful lot.  I also suspect that Coalition forces will find some reason to stay in Iraq despite paragraph 12.

Indeed... a puppet government maybe?

[Dav]

i think this is a good resolution, consideing that the US put it forwad the should honor it.

 

they will still be there but their forses will be under the control of the new iraqi government.

 

I will not al all be surprised to see the US follow this to the letter, in the process securing a deal with the new government for cheap oil.

[Tascar]

they will still be there but their forses will be under the control of the new iraqi government.

 

I will not al all be surprised to see the US follow this to the letter, in the process securing a deal with the new government for cheap oil.

HAHAHAHA!! I'm sure the US will simply hand our boyz over to be controlled by the Iraqi government! rofl! HAAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHAA!

 

The US might get better oil prices, but that won't mean that gas prices will descend too quickly -- companies aren't fast to drop prices when they can make more profit from it.

 

control by the Iraqi government....rofl good one Dav

 

oh and A Soldier - I suppose you have a better plan for a new government there? If i'm not mistaken, many middle east countries suffer from a lack of central government....the very thing that the USA is trying to prevent.

[Dav]

they will still be there but their forses will be under the control of the new iraqi government.

 

I will not al all be surprised to see the US follow this to the letter, in the process securing a deal with the new government for cheap oil.

HAHAHAHA!! I'm sure the US will simply hand our boyz over to be controlled by the Iraqi government! rofl! HAAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHAA!

 

The US might get better oil prices, but that won't mean that gas prices will descend too quickly -- companies aren't fast to drop prices when they can make more profit from it.

 

control by the Iraqi government....rofl good one Dav

 

oh and A Soldier - I suppose you have a better plan for a new government there? If i'm not mistaken, many middle east countries suffer from a lack of central government....the very thing that the USA is trying to prevent.

i am just quoting what was said on our news.

 

The propoal is that forces stay to assist with the peace keepimng but will take orders on how to proceed when there by the new government.

 

Of course the US can call people bak whenever it pleases but it wants to lend a hand in the new iraq.

[BG]

1.'Hey, we need help'

 

2.'Sure, We'll leave some troops there.'

 

1.'Thanks!'

 

2.'On One condition...'

 

 

1.'Aw, -*BAD WORD*-!'

[Tascar]

Conditions: (according to Tascar)

 

1. No talking back to US

2. If things don't go right, we'll wait until you blow something up before we blow something up.

3. We shall assist your oil exporting operations.

4. Iraqi's are in desparate need of scantily dressed Arab babes. All women may be allowed to remove their clothing at will.

5. Anyone who doesn't like it will be silenced using the US's version of the *shutup command.

 

 

There, I said what you all expected the US to say. .... although it truly has little resemblence of that the REAL USA mission is.

[BG]

:Osama Bin Laden:*kill 5000

:Geroge Walker Bush:*shutup

[A Soldier]

oh and A Soldier - I suppose you have a better plan for a new government there?  If i'm not mistaken, many middle east countries suffer from a lack of central government....the very thing that the USA is trying to prevent.

Are you claiming that a puppet government is to be put??

[Tascar]

Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Do some research on countries like Somalia and Sudan. You will see the chaos and killing that runs wild in those countries because they have no central government.

 

An attempt at a central government prevents warring gangs from taking over the place -- which saves innocent lives. That's the bottom line.

[Dav]

Conditions: (according to Tascar)

 

1.  No talking back to US

2.  If things don't go right, we'll wait until you blow something up before we blow something up.

3.  We shall assist your oil exporting operations.

4.  Iraqi's are in desparate need of scantily dressed Arab babes.  All women may be allowed to remove their clothing at will.

5.  Anyone who doesn't like it will be silenced using the US's version of the *shutup command.  <_<

 

 

There, I said what you all expected the US to say.  .... although it truly has little resemblence of that the REAL USA mission is.

pretty much, except they will get nowhere with:

 

4. Iraqi's are in desparate need of scantily dressed Arab babes. All women may be allowed to remove their clothing at will.

 

 

but then the US govenmrnt doen't seem to understand arabs belielfs and social values are diffrent.

[Tascar]

lol Dav - it's humor you idiot.

[A Soldier]

Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

What the -*BAD WORD*-? Did you ever?

 

An attempt at a central government prevents warring gangs from taking over the place -- which saves innocent lives.  That's the bottom line.

How is your so-called argument supposed to be linked into my idea that the coalition might put a puppet government into power to gain special advantages?

Being the skeptic I am, I have a sneaking suspicion that this won't change the situation in Iraq an awful lot.  I also suspect that Coalition forces will find some reason to stay in Iraq despite paragraph 12.

Indeed... a puppet government maybe?

Please read carefully before posting stupid comments.

 

While I'm at it, I've re-read what you wrote about Dav's comment:

HAHAHAHA!! I'm sure the US will simply hand our boyz over to be controlled by the Iraqi government! rofl! HAAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHAA!

I think BG summed it up pretty good

1.'Hey' date=' we need help'

 

2.'Sure, We'll leave some troops there.'

 

1.'Thanks!'

 

[b']2.'On One condition...'[/b]

[Aileron]

Its wonderfull how all your arguements involve the word "might". We don't know what is going to happen. Be patient and wait until the 30th before passing judgement.

 

No, the US doesn't even want to buy oil cheap from Iraq, it is in more of our interest that Iraq sell its oil at a high price. We need Iraqis to get rich. Hopefully a few decades from now, neighboring politicians will say. "Look, Iraq became a democracy and now they are rich. Maybe we should switch to a democracy."

 

If the US took advantage of Iraq, they would stay poor, and this wouldn't happen.

 

The US simply benefits more out of giving Iraq a real government and a fair shot at trade than we would get out of a puppet government.

[Tascar]

lol, nice attempt at an argument A Soldier. Tell me, is the education system there standardized in your town? Or did your government ignore that rock you live under?

 

Lol, I like this next one....

 

QUOTE (Manus Celer Dei @ Jun 10 2004, 12:05 AM)

Being the skeptic I am, I have a sneaking suspicion that this won't change the situation in Iraq an awful lot. I also suspect that Coalition forces will find some reason to stay in Iraq despite paragraph 12.

 

QUOTE (A Soldier)Indeed... a puppet government maybe?

 

QUOTE (A Soldier)Please read carefully before posting stupid comments

 

...and u try so hard too. lol

[Dav]

lol Dav - it's humor you idiot.

yes but there is some truth behind it.

[A Soldier]

Aileron, I disagree.

No, the US doesn't even want to buy oil cheap from Iraq, it is in more of our interest that Iraq sell its oil at a high price.

What I learned so far about history is that every nation ruler will do the best he can to make his country better than others. This goes back as far to Otto Von Bismarck with his Realpolitik or Richelieu and Machiavel with the "Reason of State". If they can get the oil at a cheap price, the US will. They have a problem with energy anyways now.

 

I invite you to read this link.

 

"Virtuousness" is not a word that qualifies the US government as we speak right now. Take -*BAD WORD*- Cheney for exemple: former chairman and chief executive officer of Halliburton, an oilfield services firm. Isn't it a strange coincidence? The whole world knows Saddam Hussein is a tyran, and I believe that they used the "humanitarian" reason once they saw all the negative feedback they had from journalists. Today, if I ask you why you went to war, would you have an other argument than "to take off Saddam"?

 

Hopefully a few decades from now, neighboring politicians will say. "Look, Iraq became a democracy and now they are rich. Maybe we should switch to a democracy."

Democracy involves freedom of speach. People who live in countries that are ruled by dictators can't express their dissatisfaction on anything, otherwise they'd be dead the next day. Changing for a democracy would mean revolt against the elite who controls the population. Let's say you were this elite and you had both power and money. Would you give it up like that? Kind of a strange question to ask, I know, because I believe that like many others you seek justice, but it should show you what I mean. Let's not be naive.

 

If the US took advantage of Iraq, they would stay poor, and this wouldn't happen.

They won't stay poor.. but they won't get rich.

 

As for Tascar, once again, you proved nothing but the fact that you are an -*BAD WORD*-. I'm wondering if next time, I should drag myself down to your level as for that's probably what you want, being the imbecile you are. But.. as they say: "Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

[Aileron]

I've read Machiavel, and studied Bismark and Richelieu. Good to see somebody else on this forum has.

 

Virtuousness as you put it has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that the biggest benefit to the US would be turning Iraq into the next Japan, as opposed to another Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. There are lots of places to get oil - if the US really wanted oil it would have been easier to get in on the "Oil for Food" scandal, or pursue diplomatics with Russia.

 

What we really want is a bit of political support in the Middle East. It is simply in our best interest to pull Iraq up to 1st world state. While it would cost us a little money, a 1st world muslim country supporting the US would greatly change the political climate in our favor.

 

Basically, while nations typically seek self-interest, the US has more self-interest in helping Iraq than by exploiting them.

 

 

No dictatorship can achieve a complete shutdown of thought and communication, !@#$%^&*uming a human population. Even in a dicatorship people have opinions. dictator is only one person. Since one person cannot threaten a nation alone, dictators need to please atleast a small portion of their population. No man is an island - not even a totalitarian dictator. If we change the political climate, the nations will change (over the long term).

[»nintendo64]

So Aileron, after Iraq is converted into a compliant democracy supporting the West, the USA will leave it alone? do you think the idea was just invest for support in the middle east?.....

 

Of course not, that might be a consquence of what the US is planning, but not an objetive, there is no country in the world that'll throw few billions for "support".Actually, the US is looking for more than that, specially putting some US Multinationals to extract the oil, which will be cheaper, probably just a rent fee for the terrain (which will be very low, considering the compliant goverment and Iraq's state of economy).

 

Does someone care to analyze Gulf War on 1991, and then look at 2003?

 

-nintendo64

[Aileron]

So Aileron, after Iraq is converted into a compliant democracy supporting the West, the USA will leave it alone? do you think the idea was just invest for support in the middle east?.....

 

Exactly. The potential of the Middle East supporting us is much more valueble than the oil Iraq has. It IS the objective. The support and the presence of a 1st world democracy in the Middle East is much more valueble than the small amount of oil Iraq has.

 

If this were Saudi Arabia, maybe you would be right, but given the smaller amount of Iraq's oil, the support would be more valueble. Since the support is more valueble, it is likely that the support is the objective.

 

 

BTW, The US has been known to just give large amounts of money away just to help out smaller nations. Its stupid, but we do it sometimes. I know we didn't do that in Latin America, but we do just hand out money in a lot of cases.

[»nintendo64]

So Aileron, after Iraq is converted into a compliant democracy supporting the West, the USA will leave it alone? do you think the idea was just invest for support in the middle east?.....

 

Exactly. The potential of the Middle East supporting us is much more valueble than the oil Iraq has. It IS the objective. The support and the presence of a 1st world democracy in the Middle East is much more valueble than the small amount of oil Iraq has.

 

If this were Saudi Arabia, maybe you would be right, but given the smaller amount of Iraq's oil, the support would be more valueble. Since the support is more valueble, it is likely that the support is the objective.

 

 

BTW, The US has been known to just give large amounts of money away just to help out smaller nations. Its stupid, but we do it sometimes. I know we didn't do that in Latin America, but we do just hand out money in a lot of cases.

Please Aileron, you do have a point, i agree with certain arguements, except Oil was probably the main reason, because according to British Pretoleum research of Iraq oil fields (dates 2002)....

 

Research what British Petroleum said, on the internet, it must be on their site.

 

About The Aid: Yes some of the aid, it's actually for help, like the Aid we got for our Water Flood.

 

-nintendo64

[»1587200]

How can you trust anything written by a brit?