Is there really any possibility that the US would allow the UN to be in charge of post-Hussein Iraq? Of course they want a do-gooder role for the UN so that the cost of humanitarian aid and reconstruction can be shifted from the destroyers to critics of the war. But isnt it clear that whatever type of administration it is, the design will be primarily a product of US input. If the UN does not go along with this it will again be "irrelevant". The complete contempt the US has for the UN should have been evident long ago. People like Pearle, Krauthammer, and Kristol simply express this contempt in an unambiguous fashion. But it will be interesting to see to what degree the US bothers with a UN resolution of the sort discussed here. Probably the US is content to let the UK push for this sort of thing on the ground that it will make Blair feel good if it passed. The Hegelian Bush knows that the US and UK do not need UN authorisation to rule postwar Iraq. Their military might gives them that right. How many legions does the UN have parphrasing someone or other.
Cheers, Ken Hanly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul_A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 7:58 AM Subject: [PEN-L:35904] Politics of 'Oil for Food': First Shoe Drops Further to my post yesterday. The article, posted from Brussels, is short on specifics: exactly what has the US\UK proposed, what is in the draft resolution circulated in NY and being discussed in a closed Security Council Meeting today. Am not aware of any reporting from the UN or Washington, oddly enough. But one gets the basic idea. (Hey back to you Jim). paul a. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/international/worldspecial/22BRUS.html France Opposes Proposal for U.S.-British Rule in Iraq By ELAINE SCIOLINO BRUSSELS, March 21 - The battle within Europe prompted by the war in Iraq raged on today as President Jacques Chirac of France vowed to oppose a British idea for a Security Council resolution that would give the United States and Britain the right to govern Iraq...... ........ The deepest fissure was between Britain and France, whose leaders seemed to be talking past each other about the postwar administration of Iraq. Rejecting an idea floated by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain earlier in the day for a resolution to give international authority to an occupation government in Baghdad, Mr. Chirac told a news conference, "This idea of a resolution seems to me to be a way of authorizing military intervention after the fact and so is not from my point of view fitting in the current situation." Asked in a news conference whether he and his fellow leaders in Europe want a United Nations mandate over Iraq as soon as possible, Mr. Blair replied that a resolution was necessary, not just to address the potential humanitarian crisis in the country but also to authorize what he called "the post-Saddam civil authority" in Iraq. "I think there is a general agreement about the central involvement of the United Nations," Mr. Blair said. "Now exactly how that process takes place is precisely the issue that we discuss, but there is a common view now, not just amongst the Europeans but also with the United States, that it is important that we have a new United Nations resolution that authorizes that and that governs not merely the humanitarian situation but also the post-Saddam civil authority in Iraq." With the United Nations' role in postwar Iraq unclear, Security Council diplomats indicated after a meeting today that the oil-for-food program, which for the past few years has been the main source of food for 60 percent of the Iraqi population, should be revived under the temporary authority of Secretary General Kofi Annan. The program was effectively suspended on Monday when United Nations workers were pulled from Iraq. Experts representing the 15 Council members are to meet Saturday to discuss Mr. Annan's March 19 proposal to reauthorize the program. On Thursday, the European Union leaders signaled that they would resist an American-led administration for Iraq and in a joint statement called for the United Nations to play a central role. But Mr. Chirac seemed to think that a Security Council resolution would make the United States and Britain the de facto governors of Iraq. He added, "France would not accept a resolution tending to legitimize the military intervention and giving the Americans and British the power to administer Iraq." He said the United Nations was the only body that could take responsibility for rebuilding Iraq, underscoring that he is willing to consider some sort of resolution for rebuilding the country but not one that would seem to legitimize the war or give the United States and Britain exceptional powers. "Whatever the results of the military operation," Mr. Chirac said, Iraq "must be rebuilt, and for that there is just one forum, the United Nations." Later in Washington, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the United States was in contact with members of the Security Council "as to what is appropriate" for a postwar Iraqi authority. "I hope that France will want to be a partner in such an effort, but that remains to be seen," Mr. Powell said. The leaders in Brussels wrapped up their meeting with a 36-page declaration that pledged to forge creative strategies to combat the global economic slowdown. Still, not all of the insults could be held back. Britain, which has committed 45,000 troops to the Iraqi campaign, continued to hurl accusations that France sabotaged an effort to win international approval at the United Nations for the war. ......
