Q&A: Iraq resolution

The 15 members of the United Nations Security Council have voted unanimously in favour of Resolution 1511 outlining Iraq's political future. BBC News Online examines the background to the agreement and what effects it might have.

What are the key points in the resolution?

The agreement gives new legitimacy to the US-led administration in charge of Iraq, but emphasises that power should be transferred to Iraqis "as soon as practicable".

It sets 15 December as a deadline for Iraqi leaders to devise a plan for the drafting of a constitution and the holding of democratic elections.

The resolution calls for the UN to strengthen its role, particularly through humanitarian relief and the regeneration of Iraq's economy and institutions.

Security is noted as a key factor, and the deal authorises the establishment of a multinational force to promote stability in Iraq.

It also calls specifically for countries to supply whatever financial and military support they can.

What practical difference will this resolution make on the ground?

As yet, very little. A BBC News Online correspondent in Baghdad reports the water supply remains cut off for a second day in the Iraqi capital and the fear of another car bombing is uppermost in people's minds.

But the hope will be that the adoption of the resolution will send the right message - that Iraq will be handed back to its people as soon as possible and that the international community will back the country's reconstruction.

If that message is accepted, there might be more support for the US-led authority now in charge of Iraq and fewer attacks on troops if they are not viewed as occupiers. That in turn could allow more energy to be directed to rebuilding.

Who won the diplomatic battle?

All sides can claim some success, but the United States and its ally Britain which co-sponsored the resolution with Cameroon and Spain probably came out on top.

The resolution recognises the role of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority which runs Iraq at the moment and sets no date for a handover of power to Iraqis.

But France, Russia and Germany, who all opposed the US-led war in Iraq, said they had secured needed acknowledgement that the role of outsiders in Iraq was a temporary one.

Will it help the coalition that an Arab nation voted for the resolution?

The yes vote from Syria was a surprise to many, but may have less to do with any support for the actions in Iraq than a desire not to be out on its own or to add to its disagreements with the US.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Syria was the last Security Council member to indicate privately that it would back the resolution and did so only after it learned that the other 14 countries would vote in favour.

Nevertheless, it remains symbolically very important to have the support of an Arab nation for the process in Iraq as well as the return of unanimity in the Security Council which had been deeply divided over the war.

Will it make it easier to get donations for Iraq's reconstruction?

In principle yes, but in practice there may not be much difference. The adoption of the resolution has brought the international community together ahead of next week's donors conference in Madrid. It might smooth the way for global bodies such as the World Bank to commit funds. But countries such as France, Germany and Russia are not expected to make contributions in the near future.

Can we expect more countries to send troops in the long term?

As with the money, the resolution calls on countries to provide what they can, but it is unlikely to generate new offers just yet.

A multinational force in Iraq has now received UN approval, but those troops will still come under US control, so objections from countries concerned about American dominance will remain.

The most that can be hoped for at the moment is that the resolution will encourage nations to reconsider their position in terms of providing troops and money.