Q&A: Iraq diplomatic twists

A diplomatic breakthrough over Iraq is in sight at the United Nations, after France's President Jacques Chirac told the New York Times he would not veto US efforts for a new Security Council resolution on Iraq. BBC world affairs correspondent William Horsley answers questions about what will happen next.

How close are we to agreement on a UN resolution?

Possibly days, maybe still some weeks.

President Chirac has said he will not veto the US-proposed resolution, which would give the UN's formal blessing to the work of the US-led security force in Iraq.

But he says France will not vote for the text either, unless it is changed to commit the Americans to handing over more self-governing powers to the Iraqis quickly.

Some other Security Council members support the French leader's approach.

And all agree that the new resolution needs more than the minimum two-thirds majority (nine out of 15 votes with no vetoes), to provide a firm mandate for the operation in Iraq in future.

Meetings at UN headquarters in the coming days, including one between Presidents Bush and Chirac, and another with the foreign ministers of all five permanent members of the Security Council, may prove decisive.

Have all the disagreements that occurred in the UN in the run-up to the war been resolved?

No. France, Russia and Germany still say that the US was wrong to launch the war.

But Russia and Germany have made clear they will not let past quarrels get in the way of the urgent task of getting Iraq back on its feet.

France has objected to almost every American step in Iraq so far, partly in order to prove its point - that the US must not be allowed to act unilaterally in this way.

France still wants a "much bigger role" for the United Nations inside Iraq and a fixed timetable for the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis, with a final deadline for that process in nine months' time.

The US rejects any timetable. But it wants broader UN involvement, both to encourage more nations to send troops, and to speed up reconstruction.

Why has President Chirac backed away from a confrontation with the US?

Firstly because he was at risk of being isolated, after Russia and Germany signalled their wish to end their open split with the US.

President Chirac has played a bold card by presenting France as a champion of the Arab world and the Third World as a whole throughout this crisis.

It would be hard for him to go on claiming the high moral ground if it were to become obvious that French obstruction was making the situation in Iraq worse.

In the long run France also has significant commercial and political interests in Iraq and the region, which could be damaged if France were to stand aloof from the re-building of the country.

Does the US really need the UN if it is to make progress in Iraq?

Yes it does.

The Americans hoped that they, with a few chosen allies, could manage the occupation of Iraq successfully, with a swift return to order and security and a general welcome from the Iraqi people.

Those hopes have been dashed.

The US-led coalition needs the UN for:

• more international legitimacy for the security operation,
• Iraqi and international acceptance of new political institutions,
• full engagement by UN agencies such as the World Bank, IMF and relief organisations.

When are we likely to see the US hand over authority to the Iraqi people?

The US claims to have taken a big first step already, with the setting up of an Iraqi Governing Council and the formation of a provisional cabinet of Iraqis, with limited powers.

A new constitution and free elections are meant to follow.

The British Government's special envoy in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, says a fully-fledged Iraqi elected government could be in place within the next year.

At that point the US administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremer, would actually hand over power to an Iraqi government.

What role will there be for the UN in Iraq?

The UN is being forced to re-assess its presence in Baghdad once again after the latest bomb attack on Monday.

After the devastating bombing of its headquarters there in August a large number of UN administrators and aid workers had already left.

The UN has made clear it is in no position to command a classical "blue-helmet" peacekeeping operation.

The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, reflects the wishes of most of the international community in saying the UN should play a key role in helping the Iraqis re-build their country, both politically and economically.

The UN will probably be asked to help organise free elections next year.

But the big question may remain for a long time - how to protect the peace-keepers?

Are other countries now more likely to send peacekeeping forces?

Yes, a dozen or more countries which have so far held back can be expected to send forces.

At present, some 19 nations are providing personnel for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

But the overwhelming majority of the soldiers in the over 150,000-strong force are from the US, while Britain provides just over 10,000.

Pakistan and India are among those which may contribute in future.

Turkey, another mainly Muslim nation which is also a US ally, is deliberating whether to follow suit.

Germany and France both say they are willing to help train Iraqi security forces.

But neither of them has substantial forces to spare from other duties to send to Iraq, even if their leaders should wish to do so.