BRITAIN and the US unveiled their plan to transfer power in Iraq to a sovereign government yesterday but it drew only a cautious welcome from the international community, which is concerned that tens of thousands of foreign troops could remain on Iraqi soil indefinitely under Pentagon command.

After weeks of negotiation between Washington and London, the two allies tabled a draft United Nations Security Council resolution that would approve the handover of power to an Iraqi caretaker government on June 30.

The text avoids the issue of security but British diplomats said that a national security committee with Iraqi, American and British representatives would have to approve operations such as last month’s siege of Fallujah, with the Iraqis having a veto.

However, US and British commanders would retain control of Iraq’s day-to-day security, enabling them to respond to attacks and kill or capture insurgents. The allies would also keep control of high- profile prisoners, including Saddam Hussein, despite the abuse at Abu Ghraib jail. The White House said last night that the jail would be demolished after the handover if the interim government agrees.

The draft was circulated in New York hours before a speech on Iraq by President Bush. He sought to remind the US public of his strategic goals, while promising to withdraw troops as quickly as possible.

“America's task in Iraq is not only to defeat an enemy, it is to give strength to a friend, a free, representative government that serves its people and fights on their behalf. And the sooner this goal is achieved, the sooner our job will be done,” he said.

The resolution declares “the end of the occupation and the assumption of authority by a sovereign interim government of Iraq by 30 June 2004”. It sets out an ambitious timetable, including a “national conference” of leading Iraqis this summer and elections by the end of January.

Almost every aspect of statehood will be transferred to the caretaker government, which is due to be named by the end of this month. That includes control of oil revenues, subject to international supervision.

But the resolution makes clear that the 150,000 American and British troops would retain control of security and offered no timetable for their withdrawal.

Paragraph 6 grants “multi-national forces”, as the coalition troops will be renamed, the authority to use “all necessary measures” to maintain security and fight terrorism. It proposes that their status be reviewed in 12 months’ time. Senior British officials said that the best historical analogy was the gradual handover of power in postwar Germany.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, predicted “quite a period of negotiations” but said that Britain expected unanimous approval.

France, the Security Council’s most outspoken critic of the war, repeated that it wanted a clear timetable for the full transfer of authority. “The transfer of power to the new (Iraqi) government must be a complete, sincere and clear one,” Michel Barnier, the French Foreign Minister, said.

Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister and another opponent of the war, was more upbeat. “I think there is broad agreement here,” he said.

But human rights activists were unimpressed. “There is no such thing as ‘sovereignty-lite’,” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said. “Being sovereign is like being pregnant, you either are or you aren’t. If the new Iraqi government doesn't have ultimate responsibility for the security of the Iraqi people, it is not truly sovereign.”

Security Council members said that before responding to the text they wanted to hear a report from Iraq by Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN special envoy to Baghdad, who will select the caretaker goverment.

British diplomats said that they wanted the text agreed in time for the June 6 D-Day ceremonies in Normandy, attended by Mr Bush, Tony Blair, President Chirac, President Putin and Chancellor Schröder. That will maximise pressure on the French and Germans.

Exact details of the security arrangements will be set out in letters between the future government and countries contributing troops. But British diplomats said that US and British officers would remain in “operational command” of forces, who would be immune from prosecution.

The British want a national security committee where the future Iraqi prime minister, defence minister and interior minister would have a veto over US-led operations such as the siege of Fallujah.

Mr Blair will today urge backing for the resolution. Ministers privately insist that the wording has been heavily influenced by London, particularly its reference to the transfer of full sovereignty to Iraq. The Prime Minister is anxious to give as much authority as possible to the interim government to help it to take responsibility for its own security as soon as possible.

Throughout yesterday, British officials were emphasising that the multinational force would remain in Iraq only at the invitation of the interim government. Mr Blair’s spokesman said: “There will be an interim government working with the multi-national force, which will set the strategic framework within which the force will operate.

“In terms of our troops, they will be commanded by our military commanders but the overall strategic framework in which they work will be set out on the basis of consensus.”

Jack Straw said last night that he was confident of support from France and Ger.many. “There’s been a lot of debate with key partners in advance of sharing texts with them, so we’ve got a fair idea about what they would find acceptable and what they wouldn’t,” he said.

The resolution spelt out “very categorically that there is a transfer of power to the Iraqi people on June 30.

THE UN RESULUTION:

Grants control of Iraqi funds to the interim government Transfers Oil-for-Food programme to Iraqi interim government

Times Recommends

• Rio Tinto four held as China prepares case
• Diplomats must keep heads down and trousers up
• When in Rome should one make like Berlusconi?