Nadia: We’ve had this discussion in Gupshup numerous times. The UN is not ready, willing or able to step in. They left. They are not ready to come back. I think the world would be pretty neat if pigs had wings and they were flying all over the place too. But pigs don’t have wings.
We have what we have. That’s what we and the Iraqi people are dealing with. You seem to expect perfection and satisfaction with everything. Won’t happen. Never has. Never will. Heck, you’ll find a majority of people unhappy with something in every country in the world. Should we try to satisfy the majority and respond to legitimate grievances? Absolutely. Should we strive to do better? Sure.
But, we apparently are starting from a much better position than most naysayers would have anyone believe.
The majority of Iraqis feel they are better off today than they were under Saddam.
The majority see their future getting better not worse.
Only a very small minority want the US to leave immediately.
A huge majority want democracy.
Only a very small minority think attacks against the coalition are justified.
These opinions of the Iraqi people are very positive news. These opinions speak well for the future of Iraq.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by myvoice: *
**You seem to expect perfection and satisfaction with everything. *
[/QUOTE]
Believe me, that is so not accurate. i don't expect perfection or satisfaction with everything. i have hopes, yes, but i don't expect every situation to be la la hunky dory.
Anyways. If the majority of Iraqis are happy, well - fantastic.
Edit: To reiterate UTD's point below, when did the UN itself leave the country ? If you are referring to the UN weapons inspectors, they were kicked out by an impatient President and PM who were unwilling to wait for the inspectors' mandated tasks to be carried out.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
^ "Not if the UN steps in."
Nadia: We've had this discussion in Gupshup numerous times. The UN is not ready, willing or able to step in. They left. They are not ready to come back. I think the world would be pretty neat if pigs had wings and they were flying all over the place too. But pigs don't have wings.
[/QUOTE]
The U.S. rejected back in April of handing Iraq over to UN control myvoice, where are reading otherwise?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The U.S. rejected back in April of handing Iraq over to UN control myvoice, where are reading otherwise?
[/QUOTE]
This seems to be a popular retort. Perhaps you could show me some relevant and credible citation by reference which sets forth a UN plan for the post-war administration of Iraq by the UN including reconstruction and security which was agreed upon and/or proposed by the members of the Security Council (except for the US). While I do recall France, Germany and Russia clamoring for reconstruction contracts, I simply don't remember them offering up a UN administrative team to run Iraq and a UN security force to stabilize Iraq. The prevailing attitude was then akin to "you made this mess, now you clean it up" all the while they sat back rubbing their hands in the hopes of total US/UK failure.
Please show me when and where the UN was ** ready willing and able ** to take over post-war Iraq duties from the US.
The fact is myvoice back in April Bush and company would only allow the UN a humanitarian role in post-Iraq and rejected anything that went further.
President Sees Limited Role for U.N. in Postwar Iraq
HILLSBOROUGH, Northern Ireland, April 8 — President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain pledged today to grant the United Nations a “vital role” in post-war Iraq, but Mr. Bush described that role as largely humanitarian and advisory rather than one central to overseeing the country and eventually establishing a new government.
During a break in a second day of meetings here with Mr. Blair, the president said he envisioned the United Nations providing food and medicine, collecting donations and offering suggestions about the composition of an interim governing authority, composed of Iraqis from inside and outside the country, to be set up by the United States and Britain.
But Mr. Bush appeared intent on retaining for the United States and Britain the right to decide on the members and powers of the temporary authority, effectively holding the United Nations to a more limited role than sought by many European nations and, to some extent, Mr. Blair, the president’s main ally in the conflict with Iraq.
The disagreements between the two leaders over the role of the United Nations were muted and were played down by officials from both sides. But the officials hinted at a broader debate to come about how the United States will deal with the United Nations and how the other members of the Security Council will view the United States, especially following the breach over whether to back Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair in waging war against Iraq.
Speaking at a news conference this morning in between meetings here, the president said he did not know whether Saddam Hussein had been killed by an attack on a residential complex in Baghdad on Monday. If Mr. Hussein is still alive, the president said, his grasp “around the throats of the Iraqi people” is loosening.
“I can’t tell you if all 10 fingers are off the throat, but finger by finger, it’s coming off,” Mr. Bush.
The meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, held in a castle in this village south of Belfast, was their third in as many weeks. In addition to allowing them to plan for what comes after the war, it provided a forum for Mr. Bush to throw his weight behind Mr. Blair’s efforts to bring Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland into a power-sharing arrangement intended to end their long-running sectarian strife.
Nearly three weeks into the war, with the allies securing control over much of Iraq, American forces well into their effort to take Baghdad, and Mr. Hussein’s fate unclear, Mr. Bush appeared more relaxed than during his last session with Mr. Blair, at Camp David on March 27.
But the president showed a flash of annoyance at skepticism among other nations and in the questions he got here today about whether he truly sees the United Nations playing an important role in Iraq.
“Evidently there’s some skepticism here in Europe about whether or not I mean what I say,” Mr. Bush said. “Saddam Hussein clearly knows I mean what I say.”
Mr. Blair has been under pressure at home and from other European nations to insure that international authority over the course of post-war Iraq rests primarily with the United Nations and not just the United States and Britain. On Monday, Koffi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, said United Nations involvement would be essential to establishing the legitimacy of any new Iraqi government.
Mr. Blair appeared to have gotten only some of what he wanted from Mr. Bush, but also to be intent on warning the rest of the Security Council, where divisions over the war still run deep, not to get into another fight over the future of Iraq.
“The important thing is not to get into some battle about words of the precise role here or there,” Mr. Blair said. “But let’s all work together internationally the coalition forces, the international community together to do what we really should be doing, which is making sure that the will of the Iraqi people is properly expressed in institutions that in the end they own, not any outside power or authority.”
With fighting still raging in Baghdad, American and British officials here stressed that the war was not yet over. But the two leaders spent most of their time looking ahead to what happens when the fighting stops. The White House has made clear that it will seek and welcome financial assistance, humanitarian aid and logistical support in post-war Iraq from other countries and international institutions including the United Nations.
It is also grappling with how long to keep American troops in Iraq, and whether there will be a need for a peacekeeping force, possibly provided by NATO, which like the United Nations was deeply divided by Mr. Bush’s hardline against Iraq.
The tension over the role of the United Nations centers on the establishment of the so-called Iraqi interim authority, a quasi-governmental operation that would take over much of the day-to-day administration of the country from American and British military and civilian overseers. The interim authority in turn would give way at some undetermined point to a full-fledged Iraqi government.
Mr. Bush appeared intent on preserving the right to name or approve the authority’s leaders, and to limiting the United Nations to suggesting names of Iraqis to serve on the authority and and endorsing its legitimacy. Mr. Blair had been seeking a plan that would have given the United Nations a more direct role in naming the interim authority.
In their joint statement today, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said the interim authority would be “established first and foremost by the Iraqi people, with the help of the members of the coalition, and working with the secretary general of the United Nations.”
The statement said they would seek United Nations resolutions “that would affirm Iraq’s territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq.”
When pressed at the news conference to explain what he meant by a “vital role” for the United Nations, Mr. Bush responded with a narrow definition that seemed to grant the body only a supporting role in establishing a post-war Iraq.
“That means food, that means medicine, that means aid, that means a place where people can give their contributions, that means suggesting people for the IIA, that means being a party to the progress being made in Iraq,” Mr. Bush said. His reference was to the Iraqi interim authority.
Both leaders stressed that the interim authority would be comprised of Iraqis and would be a step in an effort to create a full-fledged government as soon as possible.
“This new Iraq that will emerge is not to be run either by us or, indeed, by the U.N.,” Mr. Blair said. “That is a false choice. It will be run by the Iraqi people.”
UTD:
Here's the lead quote from Bush: "Mr. Bush described that role as largely humanitarian and advisory rather than one central to overseeing the country and eventually establishing a new government."
Fact is, the UN has been largely unwilling to even play a "humanitarian" role in Iraq. Citing security concerns, they have fled. Thankfully, they played an "advisory role" sending someone in there to assess the feasibility of elections thereby helping overcome an issue with Sistani.
There never has been any concensus by the other members to play a more "central" role "overseeing the country and eventually establishing a new government." The UN has never volunteered for that role. So, it is true that Bush saw a "limited role" for the UN. It is also true that the UN's own vision of its role has been even more "limited" than that seen by Bush. So....it is just flat out wrong to say how much better things would be if only Bush had turned post-war tIraq over to the UN. There was no willing UN on that side of the equation.
myvoice take a look at this from Time magazine stating what Powell said and tell me what you are failing to understand. Bush rejected any large UN role outright.
Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004
In the heady aftermath of last year’s lightning victory in Iraq, the Bush administration slapped down suggestion of putting the United Nations in charge of the country’s transition to democracy. “The coalition, having invested this political capital and life and treasure into this enterprise (is) going to have a leading role for some time,” Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters on April 11. “(The suggestion) that now that the coalition has done all of this and liberated Iraq, thank you very much, step aside and the Security Council is now going to become responsible for everything, is incorrect, and they know it and they were told it.”
MV, when an idiot is working on a car and obviously needs help but yells at you before you have the chance to offer help, why would you still offer help? Bush & Co made it clear that help was not wanted.. it was rather bluntly shunned. For the UN and Old Europe to take action in Iraq would have required an override of the US government. Very unlikely so why bother?
Plus, it'd really be a stretch to say that we're playing a central role in overseeing and shaping a new Iraqi government, wouldn't it? I mean, all we do is react. If we were serious about shaping a viable govt we wouldnt have drafted the Nov 15 agreement, we wouldnt be handing over control to a ghost on the 30th (tho we might not do that, not because we planned it that way, rather because we didnt plan at all), [edit=I forgot about that piece of $#%^ TAL! we wouldn't have let that fly either], we wouldn't have caved to Sistani et al so many times like a cowering baby.. etc ad nauseam. So where's the danger in letting the UN play? They couldn't have been any more incompetent or weak-willed than us.
First, Spoon, thanks for using an analogy as it will help in the discussion. If my son needed major heart surgery and I said "there is no way I'm going to let Dr. Joe, the renowned proctologist, perform it," exactly what have I done?
Dr. Joe never said he would perform the operation. Dr. Joe has no ability, desire and/or resources to perform the operation. But for my statement, would Dr. Joe have stood ready, willing and able to perform my son's heart surgery? Did my statement stop Dr. Joe from performing the surgery? To both questions, the answer is of course not.
The other members of the Security Council have never ever since April of last year to the present given one iota of support for the proposition that the UN was ready, willing or able to commit the troops, money, personnel and/or other resources to take over administration of post-war Iraq. They put a few bodies on the ground and then fled at the first bomb explosion. Until and unless somebody can show me one single piece of credible evidence that the UN was prepared to do this, the charge that Bush prevented the UN from taking over is just so much bullcr*p. All the evidence is 100% contrary to this viewpoint. The expressions of every non-coalition member of the Security Council was "this is the US/UK problem. They should handle it." IMO, the stand of the other members of the UN Security Council was simply to let the Americans and Brits suffer the consequences of trying to stabalize and rebuild Iraq in the hope the effort would fail to punish the US and UK for defying them in going to war in the first place. While this petulant attitude is understandable when you factor in human nature, there is nothing about it that ever considered the best interests of the Iraqi people. When the UN demonstrates that it is willing to put even a half dozen people back in Iraq to administer even a small hot dog stand, we can revisit this.
The fact that most Iraqis believe they are better off today than they were before the war and face a better future probably irritates the hell out of the UN. The fact that a civil war has not errupted probably leaves many red-faced. The fact that a democracy might emerge out of Iraq awill probably hurt many as much as trying to pass a kidney stone.
Now that the coalition has done all of this and liberated Iraq, thank you very much, step aside and the Security Council is now going to become responsible for everything, is incorrect, and they know it and they were told it -Powell
The UN was told to butt out myvoice, how you say otherwise with the above quote stated by Powell is beyond my reasoning. As spoon said Bush shunned them so why would the UN bother submiting a plan when the U.S. told them they would not be taking over as they would just be shunned again thus weakening them (the UN) even further. They knew they would not be taking over as they were told this by Bush according to Powell.
I agree the UN has a spotty record on nationbuilding but let's take a look at the U.S. and nation building, they too have a failing grade. A major fear/complaint by the Iraqis is that the U.S. was just there to take over their resources, one that was bolstered by Bush's disreguard for the UN.
Please post just one citation where the governments or ambassadors of France, Russia and Germany indicated they would support a resolution for the UN to take over post-war administration, security, and reconstruction of Iraq from the US.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the greater interest in Europe (France, Germany et. al) postwar Iraq had to do with rebuilding contracts for privately based corporations.
I never got the impression that these countries inder the auspices of U.N. were ready and willing to take over the postwar administration of the country.
France and Germany Pushed for the UN to take control of Iraq back in April and gave another push in September, I'll find you some documentation if you really don’t remember.
From an Iraqi's point of view, how is an occupation by the U.N. any different?
They still would have an occupying force. Democratization and the rebuilding of infrastructure would still be the goal.
Perhaps they (UN) would not be seen as a hostile enemy, but in the long run would this have made any difference?
The insurgent forces might not have had such an immediate and furious reaction to UN forces in the aftermath of the war (big assumption by the way that UN could coordinate a large force like this in the immediate aftermath of major conflict) as they did to the invading (US) military.
However, to the insurgent, everything the UN would hope to accomplish in Iraq (democracy and pluralism) is still completely at odds with their own agenda. So I think we would still have bombings, terror and insurgency in Iraq until the mischief makers are gone from the scene (politically and/or militarily).
I think some wish the UN would have immediately taken over because it might have seemed "nicer" or "more fair". Ignoring the fact that the UN in all likelyhood would have been and still probably is incapable of handling this, I don't think it would have mattered in the long run in the mind of the insurgents-while Kofi may seem nicer than Bush, he still would have been an obstacle for the insurgency.
MV, I don't have too much time right now so this'll be quick and I'll come back later, but I like your analogy. Essentially you are saying (in the analogy, your argument is somewhat different) the UN is unqualified for the job. I agree they are unqualified for the task you describe, luckily this is not heart surgery. But to stick with your analogy for a moment.. if this is heart surgery we are only the anesthesiologist. We knocked 'em out, now we don't really know what the hell to do.
Just thought that was a witty retort and wanted to get it in before I forgot it :) I'll be more detailed later.
Sometimes in curing cancer the cure seems worse than the disease. Until the time that the chemotherapy ends, and life retruns to normal. We may have anesthetized the patient, but there is a gremlin in the operating room who keeps pulling the plugs out of the wall.
Spoon:
I think we are close to an understanding of each other's position and maybe even agreement. Not only do I argue that the UN was not ** qualified ** (or, maybe more accurately, ** capable ** at that point in time) to take over security, administration and rebuilding, I further argue that they did not want the job and didn't ask for it and wouldn't do it.
Some day I plan on studying up a bit on how in the heck the US was able through the Marshall Plan to basically secure, administer and rebuild most of Europe after WWII not to mention Japan too. Maybe it wasn't quite as smooth as my own limited knowledge tells me. Maybe there are critical missing elements in Afghanistan and Iraq that make the effort more difficult there. Maybe, we are just more impatient in today's world and expect projects that should last for decades to be finished in months and years.