U.S., Britain Differ on Iraqi Authority Over Foreign Troops

Blair Says Iraqi 'Consert' Required for Military Operations After June 30

A day after the United States and Britain proposed a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq, the touchy question of the relationship between foreign troops and a new nominally sovereign Iraqi government today drew differing responses from Washington and London and expressions of concern from other allied capitals.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush's chief ally in Iraq, said today that forces of the U.S.-led coalition there will need the "consent" of the new Iraqi government to conduct some military operations after political power is transferred on June 30.

Blair's comments, which went beyond anything the United States has said on the crucial question of military authority in post-June 30 Iraq, came as U.N. Security Council members France, Germany and Russia reiterated their reservations about the draft resolution. The document is designed to give the Security Council's imprimatur to a new interim Iraqi government scheduled to take power from the U.S.-led occupation authority and to endorse the continued presence of U.S. troops as part of a "multinational force" charged with maintaining security.

Much of the concern about the resolution revolves around the extent of Iraqi authority over security questions, such as troop actions.

Blair told a news conference in London that "if there's a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Fallujah in a particular way, that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government and the final political control remains with the Iraqi government. That's what the transfer of sovereignty means.

"That doesn't mean to say that our troops are going to be ordered to do something that our troops don't want to do," Blair told reporters. "The political control shifts, the operational issues have to be decided under various agreements. . . . It may be decided on an operation-to-operation basis."

But he was emphatic that "the change of sovereignty is a change of sovereignty. That is my position and the position of the U.S. government."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, asked later about Blair's comment, phrased the issue differently, saying that "we would take into account whatever" Iraqi officials say "at a political and military level."

In a briefing aboard Air Force One en route to an appearance by President Bush in Ohio, White House spokesman Scott McClellan dodged repeated questions about whether, as Blair described the situation, the Iraqi interim government would effectively have a veto power over specific operations of the multinational force.

McClellan said that in accordance with the draft resolution, "the multinational force will be in Iraq with the consent of the interim government." He said details of the relationship between the two would be spelled out in a letter to the Security Council.

"We are going to work in close cooperation with that interim government," McClellan said. "We will be there to partner with the Iraqis as they move forward to assume more responsibility for their security and for their future."

The United States currently has about 135,000 troops in Iraq. About 22,000 troops from other countries make up the rest of the coalition, including about 7,500 from Britain.

In Bush's speech Monday night and in the proposed council resolution, the administration has left open such sensitive questions as what happens if Iraqis do not want foreign forces to launch new offensives, for example.

The resolution would authorize U.S.-led multinational forces to "take all necessary measures" to keep the peace and fight terrorist elements challenging the interim government. Its mandate would be subject to review in 12 months by the Security Council or earlier, if desired, by a transitional Iraqi government.