UN official analises Resolution 1511

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s969378.htm

ELIZABETH JACKSON: The resolution has been heralded as a major diplomatic victory for the United States - the exit strategy, if you like, that it's been so desperately been searching for, but will it work?

So-called "Resolution 1511", the blueprint for the political future of Iraq, raises almost as many questions as it answers. And apart from the issue of which countries will contribute troops and money to the effort, there's a few other hurdles to be overcome, as well.

Charles Duelfer was the Acting Chairman on the UN Special Commission on Iraq, or UNSCOM, as it's known. He spoke to us a short time ago from his home in Washington. I asked him what he thought were the key elements of Resolution 1511.

CHARLES DUELFER: Well, there's a couple. The first is international recognition of the primacy of the American military presence.

Secondly, is the recognition that other countries are committed, at least on paper, to provide support, both in terms of financial resources and in terms of military support in addition to the American presence.

A third important aspect of this is the rule of the United Nations in the formulation of a new government in Iraq. That's a little bit fuzzier in terms of the actual language in the resolution, but there are markers put down that the United Nations should participate in that process.
<snip>

Worth reading. Good Aussie reporting.

Do the Aussies really spell it "analises?"

Do we have to take everyone over or will the free world learn to do this on their own...

Substitute the word "analisis" for "unquestionably praise"

There...that looks made in the usa, fair and balanced, and something well find in our papers.

I saw a little "blurb" where Dimbo was disappointed about having no foreign troops committed to the support of "his" war. Japan might but only if they serve in secured areas away from a "vietnamese-type" conflict.