The UN Resolution which formally ends the occupation has been fought over long and hard by France and Germany, but the issue over control of military operations seems to have been successfully fudged.

Just before the Security Council voted, Kirsty Wark spoke to the British Ambassador to the UN, Sir Emyr Jones Parry. She asked what had fundamentally changed from last year to allow their resolution through now.

Watch the interview

SIR EMYR JONES PARRY
UK AMBASSADOR TO THE UN:
What was fundamental in this resolution is that we are acknowledging a sovereign government in Iraq. We are acknowledging that it will have competence from the 1st July. My colleagues have all rallied to that proposition and the idea that the United Nations should play a leading part in political process which has been defined. We have agreed that the multi-national force, which the Iraqis want, is going to stay there and it is going to have a new authority from this resolution we have passed today.

KIRSTY WARK:
Isn't the truth that Tony Blair and George Bush have been forced into the decision because of the violence, often violent realities on the ground? It does not suit the domestic political agenda and it is only because of that that this resolution in this form is being presented. It could have happened a year ago?

SIR EMYR JONES PARRY:
That is an assertion. It is always dangerous I think to put a question: Isn't the truth that...? The way I see it is that the international community, my colleagues, the whole family of the United Nations, is now rallying clearly behind Iraq and saying: whatever the disagreements, we actually now want to support this Iraq this interim government, and deliver the sort of Iraq that the Iraqi people want, and which they are entitled to.

KIRSTY WARK:
But this could have happened a year ago. There would have been far less bloodshed and far less destruction. This what Clare Short resigned over!

SIR EMYR JONES PARRY:
You may think it could have happened a year ago; I wasn't here a year ago. I lived through the traumas in NATO at the time. Life was not easy at that stage in either institution. There were wildly different and sincerely held views. I think the time has come today, and that is reflected in this resolution we have passed, that we put the past behind us and we actually go for the future of Iraq. That is the way my colleagues are looking at it and the way I want to look at it.

KIRSTY WARK:
Should it have happened a year ago?

SIR EMYR JONES PARRY:
I can only start in this life from where I'm and what I'm asked to do. Where we are is that we have a resolution, 15-0, and it is a tremendous result, don't forget that.

KIRSTY WARK:
Isn't it only able to be tabled and tabled in this way because there has been in the end a fudge over military control?

SIR EMYR JONES PARRY:
Why would you say it is a fudge if what we have annexed to this resolution is the text of a letter from the Prime Minister of Iraq setting out how he want these arrangements to work? That is what we have accepted and what we have brought in to the body of the resolution. No fudge. It is there in black and white. It reflects the wishes of the Iraqi government, now coming into being. So, it is clear and my colleagues are very happy with the language we now have in the text.

KIRSTY WARK:
Let's take a specific example. Let's say there's a wedding and in fact the Americans have got intelligence to say it's a nest of terrorists are about to conduct an attack. They want to go in and sort this out. The Iraqi government says "no, we're just going to wait". Who has the upper hand? Who makes the decision?

SIR EMYR JONES PARRY:
I think at a time when we have adopted a resolution, when we have agreed a framework of partnership, dictated by the government of Iraq, I think so it is wiser for me not to either go down the route of answering hypothetical questions or to answer tonight military questions for which I am not confident. What I am clear about is that the partnership envisaged will permit the national security committee, working with the multi-national force; work out exactly how policy on sensitive operations should work. That is what we are going to strive for. That is what is provided for in the resolution. That is how the case you are setting out hypothetically, that is how it will be dealt with.

KIRSTY WARK:
Thank you very much indeed.

This transcript was produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.