U.N.: Stumbling, Bumbling and Payola

The resolution, 1483, was the result of more than three weeks of work and some 90 changes made by the U.S. and U.K. before it came to a formal vote on Thursday. In the end, the Coalition got most of what it wanted, de facto and now de jure control of most of Iraq.

The resolution includes social-judicial, economic and military control over the realm of former President Saddam Hussein for at least one year, if not more.

However, not all 15 members of the Security Council were present for the vote. The Arab member of the Council, Syria refused to attend the meeting. Meanwhile, the acting Syrian ambassador Fayssal Mekhdad insisted he had yet to receive instructions form his government on how to vote.

The Syrian action delayed the Council meeting for over 40 minutes, until the U.S. and U.K. pushed for a vote, with or without Syrian participation.The result was 14-0 with one "nonparticipant." It was the second time in less than a year that Syria had taken this approach.

Late last year, the Syrian delegation opted to boycott a Council meeting on the Israel-Palestine crisis.

[Before Syria, the only time in recent history that a Council member refused to participate in a formal meeting was in the spring of 1994. Rwanda, in the midst of a vicious civil war, vacated its Council seat when the government was overthrown. The seat lay vacant for about a week, until rebels of the Rwandan Patriotic Front seized control.]

To make matters even stranger, the acting Syrian ambassador then showed up for an afternoon meeting of the Council to inform the U.N. that he had now received instructions from his government.

"Syria," he said, "now wishes to vote in favor of the resolution."

That sent U.N. legal officials scurrying. Was the Syrian action legal? If so, could other current or former Council members arbitrarily change their votes?

Late Thursday, the U.N. explained that the earlier 14-0 vote would remain as is, but the Syrian decision would be entered into the Council's official minutes.

As he left the U.N., Mekhdad told NewsMax:

"If we were given the (extra) time in the morning, we would have done this (vote yes) and raise our hands together with the other people....this reflects our decision to work in unity (with the other Council members)."

The diplomat insisted the morning boycott was due to the fact that discussions were still underway in his government with no decision made. Others in the Council were wary of the Syrian move and as such moved to vote with or without Damascus being present.

Feeling somewhat stung by the turn of events, Mekhdad told NewsMax that Syria would now become actively involved in Iraqi economic reconstruction. As such, he announced that Syrian ports on the Mediterranean Sea would now be open for aid destined for Baghdad. Such aid could then be freely transported overland to Iraq.

If Syria follows through, it could shave weeks off the arrival of critical aid and save millions of dollars off transportation costs.

Most relief going to Iraq has either been flown in or shipped in via the Suez Canal and up the Persian Gulf to the ports of Basra and Um Qasr.

Meanwhile, U.S. diplomats confirm that Washington and London were able to gain the critical support of Paris and Moscow in the Council by dangling some dollars.

France and Russia are owed billions of dollars by the former Iraqi government. The U.S. had spoken about helping Iraqi reconstruction with a forgiveness of debt. Moscow and Paris flatly rejected the proposal.

The solution?

The U.N.'s Iraq Oil for Food Program (which has over $13 billion in revenues in escrow accounts) will be called upon to address the "concerns" of Russia and France.

While almost $10 billion is specifically committed for humanitarian aid, more than $3 billion is still available for supporting activities.

The U.S. and U.K. have agreed to let the U.N. draw upon that fund to begin settling any claims countries such as France and Russia may have. There is also an informal commitment to allow countries outside the Coalition to participate in the bidding to gain contracts to help rebuild Iraq.

Coincidentally, the San Francisco based Bechtel Corporation, a main U.S. contractor in Iraqi reconstruction revealed that more than 90 percent of its business would go to subcontractors.

It held preliminary discussions in London on Friday on the bidding process.