On Friday, the follow-up story explained how George W. Bush intends to get Iraq to give up it's sovereignty. In US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal, Cockburn reports that:

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal...

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

So, will the members of the U.N. Security Council allow the Bush administration to extort a security agreement from Iraq? Or, will they allow Bush to rob billions for the Iraqis? According to the Washington Post, Iraq May Request Extension For U.S., the Security Council may have a say in Bush's scheme.

The Iraqi government may request an extension of the United Nations security mandate authorizing a U.S. military presence, due to expire in December, amid growing domestic criticism of new bilateral arrangements now being negotiated with the Bush administration, according to senior Iraqi officials...

Failure to reach an agreement on the arrangements, which must be approved by the Iraqi parliament, would leave the negotiations over a future U.S.-Iraqi relationship and the role of U.S. forces in the country to the next American president.

Iraq is rightfully balking at Bush's election year demands. Iraq is being blackmailed and there is something that the three European members of the United Nation's Security Council -- Britain, France, and Russia -- could possibly do about it.

"Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated," according to first report in The Independent. However, there is little chance that Iraq will capitulate so quickly. Instead, Iraq is going to ask for an extension from the U.N. that would permit the U.S. to continue its occupation.

From the Post:

The Iraqi official, who said he could speak candidly only with anonymity, said there was virtually no chance that the July deadline, set by Bush and Maliki last fall, would be met. He said an Iraqi request to extend the U.N. mandate might come as early as next week, when Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari is to brief the U.N. Security Council.

For U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, a senior U.S. official said, "they either have to have U.N. authority or bilateral authority. You've got to have one or the other to have a basis for [a military] presence."

Iraq appears to being the route of the U.N. rather than a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and them. So, this would give the U.N. Security Council a say and a veto.

I doubt that Britain will veto the request, but it would allow Gordon Brown an opportunity to do something bold to save Labour's chance in future elections. Such a move might even save his job as prime minister, but still the U.K. will not veto. France? Equally ridiculous with Nicolas Sarkozy apparent friendship with George W. Bush and his desire to cozy France up with the United States.

So, it falls upon Russia. Would the Dmitry Medvedev / Vladimir Putin Russia veto? Russia opposed the invasion back in 2003 and has not supported the occupation since then. And Putin, as recently as last fall, described the U.S. in Iraq as being "pointless".

Unlike Europe, Russia is not been afraid to use its diplomatic and economic power to block the U.S. Bush is a lame duck and there is little, if anything, to be gained by capitulating to his tantrums and demands. Could Russia say nyet?