Britain sends more troops to Iraq amid signs of thaw at UN

Britain agreed last night to send more troops to Iraq in response to the growing violence against the occupation forces, while negotiations began at the United Nations on an American blueprint for the country.

The Americans were under pressure to yield power to an interim Iraqi government as the price for an agreement on a UN resolution that would entice other nations into an international peace-keeping force.

Underscoring British resolve to stay the course, a 120-strong company of the 2nd Battalion, the Light Infantry, is flying out from Cyprus to spearhead a new deployment, which will join the force of 11,000 in southern Iraq. Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, is expected to announce as early as Monday that about 1,200 soldiers will be sent at first. Defence sources say another 1,800 will be put on standby to join the mission.

The decisionwas made on the day a British bomb disposal specialist was killed near Mosul. Ian Rimell, a 53-year-old father of three children, from Kidderminster in Worcestershire, died and his local bodyguard was injured when they were ambushed on the road to the northern city from Baghdad. His widow, Jennifer Rimell, said she was angry at the way her husband had died in that "he was not a soldier and was in Iraq to help the people".

At the UN, France and Germany led the calls for further political and economic concessions by America as the first discussions were held on the US proposals among the 15 Security Council members.

A US-sponsored draft resolution, circulated on Thursday, was deemed inadequate by France and Germany. The proposals would establish a UN mandate for an international force for Iraq while demanding that it should remain under American command.

Anxious to avoid endorsing the occupation after a war it did not support, France is seeking a specific timetable for a handover, within months, to an interim Iraqi government. The aim was for Iraqis to feel they were being assisted by the international community, a UN diplomat said.

There is plenty of gloating in the French press over the US predicament, but Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, declined to follow suit. Scotching fears of a new round of battles in the Security Council, M. de Villepin told Le Figaro: "We can no longer argue in terms of a 'war camp' or a 'peace camp'." Other diplomats confirmed that after the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad, which killed the UN representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and 22 others last month, the mood at the UN was no longer one of rivalry. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said he was open to discussing French and German ideas.

M. de Villepin said the initial US draft focused too much on security issues "and doesn't take sufficiently on board the political necessity swiftly to give back Iraq her sovereignty". He said: "If there has to be a multinational force, it must serve the new Iraqi authorities."

M. de Villepin appeared to rule out French troops in the force, saying: "The conditions are not there for a French engagement." Germany has also rejected sending troops.

America has appealed for 10,000 troops from an array of countries including Turkey, India, Pakistan and Russia. Many have refused unless the force acts under UN auspices. Worryingly, countries such as India, which had earlier offered 17,000 soldiers if the force were under a UN mandate, has not stepped forward again in response to the draft resolution.

The number of British forces is also lower than that sought by Mr Straw. In a leaked document, he suggested that up to 5,000 extra soldiers were needed to tackle the security crisis.

Former environment minister Michael Meacher claims in an article in The Guardian today that the British and US governments were motivated by a desire for oil and that the Iraq war was more about US desire for global and Gulf domination than a war on terror.