A special Security Council session discussed a third draft of a resolution proposed by the US and UK. Iraq and the US have promised to co-operate on military operations. The US ambassador, John Negroponte, said the Security Council was moving towards a consensus, and he hoped a new resolution could be passed today.

Mr Negroponte said the letters exchanged between Iraq and USA clearly showed ?the full sovereignty? of Iraq was being respected. The letters would be attached to the new resolution and attempt to clarify the status of the ?multinational forces? envisaged to stay in Iraq after the 30 June handover of power.

One sticking point in discussions of the resolution was whether Baghdad will be able to veto sensitive military operations by the force ? such as the highly controversial month-long siege of Falluja by the US, when hundreds died.

This amendment was proposed by France, whose UN ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said: ?We understand that this is in principle agreed, so we hope it will be in the resolution.?

In his letter, newly appointed Iraqi, Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi repeats his request that foreign troops stay ?until we are able to provide security for ourselves?. The letter says a ministerial body will be established to ?co-ordinate with the multinational force on all security policy and operations issues?, according to a copy of the letter.

In his letter, US Secretary of State Colin Powell pledges to co-operate with Iraqis ?on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including sensitive offensive operations?.

Neither letter mentions an Iraqi veto which the Americans have made clear they would not contemplate. The letters also fail to specify whether the Americans would have to consult with the Iraqis on every sensitive operation. The British ambassador to the UN, Emyr Jones Parry, has indicated that it would.

US and UK hoped to finalise the resolution yesterday and put it to a vote soon after that. This is the third draft of the document, which was released on Friday. Among the modifications Council members have haggled over is a clause allowing the interim Iraqi government to request the multinational force to leave at any time.

The document also states clearly that the mandate of the multinational force shall expire after elections are held in Iraq, no later than 31 January 2005.

Iraq?s new interim leader has urged the UN to keep foreign troops in Iraq until it can deal with security by itself.

Iyad Allawi ? who was named as Prime Minister a week ago ? told he backs a UN resolution on the transfer of sovereignty to the new government. Mr Allawi said the resolution currently being debated by the UN would help ?secure Iraq from its enemies?.

He also said he expected ousted leader Saddam Hussein to be handed over for trial in Iraq. The interim government led by Mr Allawi was appointed over the past week in a process overseen by the UN.

Mr Allawi said: ?We?d like the multinational forces to remain in Iraq for sometimes ? until Iraq is capable of handling its own security problems.We hope we can achieve this as quickly as possible.We?d like the UN to help us (...) We?re adamant that multinational forces should be employed in Iraq.?

Following controversy over who would have ultimate control of US troops in Iraq after the handover of power at the end of June, Mr Allawi said operations should be carried out with the ?full agreement? of the Iraqi government.

He said he did not like to use the word ?veto?, but said there should be ?full and comprehensive co-ordination and co-operation between the Iraqi government and the multinational forces both in defensive and offensive situations?.

<I>?We?d like the UN to help us... We?re adamant that multinational forces should be employed in Iraq.?</I>

<B>New hopes, old obstacles</B>

Two things happened last week which have given Washington and London some reason for hope in Iraq - but many other things must happen before that hope can be realised. First, there was the appointment of the interim Iraqi government which will take over on 30 June. Second came the presentation of a revised draft Security Council text, which could form the basis of a new resolution giving UN approval to the plan. The emergence of the interim government saw President Bush in a more upbeat mood than he has been for a long time when he came into the sunshine in the Rose Garden.

He declared that it ?brings us one step closer to realising the dream of millions of Iraqis, a fully sovereign nation with a representative government that protects their rights and serves their needs?. The White House, therefore, hopes that this is a watershed.

As for the resolution, it still needs some work done, but it seems that there could be an agreement. Concessions have been made. The authority of the interim government over security has been stressed (though this still has to be fleshed out in a detailed agreement) and an end is foreseen to the mandate for the presence of the foreign troops in the ?multinational force?.

A word, though, of caution. The draft does not actually set a date for the withdrawal of foreign troops. It states that the mandate for the troops will expire on the ?completion of the political process?. The completion of the process is due on 31 December 2005 when a fully, directly elected Iraqi government is supposed to take office. Ending a mandate and withdrawing are not quite the same things, because the Iraqi government could always ask the force, or some of it, to stay. After all, US forces in Europe stay at the request of governments not under any UN mandate.

In the public mind, the two might become confused and thereby conjoined, thereby creating an expectation that the troops will be home in early 2006. Not a bad thing, you might think, for a US president on the election trail or a British PM under pressure.

It turns out incidentally that the phrase is in an existing UN resolution, 1511 from October 2003. Why it was not in the first draft this time round is a bit of a mystery? The Foreign Office in London says it was ?not considered necessary? and adds that it was put back into the latest draft ?to create confidence that the multinational force is there to support the political process?. If it had been there from the start, a lot of trouble might have been avoided. However, before London and Washington start bringing out the old metaphors about ?turning the corner? in Iraq, there are many obstacles to overcome.

It was rather surreal to watch the assembled members of the government gather for their family photo while outside the bombs were going off. So will this government be able to get a grip on security? It hardly seems possible in the few months it will be in office. An interim, appointed government is a start on the road to representative government, but it hardly carries a banner around which all can rally.

The best hope is that the new government will make local deals, as happened in Falluja, to calm things down while it builds up its own strength. Meanwhile, the multinational force should play less and less of a role.

That appears to be the intention. Already there is talk of US troops being reconfigured to protect the new government, not to attack insurgents.

Then one looks ahead to the next stage, which is December or more likely January, when elections are held to a National Assembly. Even then, there will not be a directly elected government, for it is the Assembly which will choose a ?transitional? government. But at least there will be elections. The ?transitional? government will surely provide a better test of how Iraq is doing than the present very weak structure. But it means another six months and more of uncertainty.

And it?s not over then. The transitional government will have to prepare a new constitution by August 2005, hold a referendum in October and full elections in December. Only on the last day of December 2005 will a proper government take over. That day is a long way off.

<B>Paul REYNOLDS</B>