[quote]
*4. Establish an international transitional administration and name
a transitional administrator.
5. Begin developing a national dialogue process and recruit a
national dialogue coordinator.
6. Recruit a rapidly deployable justice team of international legal
experts, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, corrections
officers, and public information experts.
7. Identify and recruit international civilian police officers. *
[/quote]
This almost seems like the re-incarnation of plan Brits, Spanish and French must have used in 17th and 18th century for their colonization exploits.
OG:
Thanks for the post. I'm glad to see there are people out there who are seriously thinking about the "process and structure" to establish in a post-Saddam environment. That post fits in with my belief that thinking in terms of the names of specific people who will be appointed President or representatives of the Iraqi people does not demonstrate good long-term strategic planning.
"This almost seems like the re-incarnation of plan Brits, Spanish and French must have used in 17th and 18th century for their colonization exploits."
The falacy here is the belief that these things will be accomplished by one "power", as opposed to the UN, regional support, or support by other bodies. Which of these items do you believe are unnecessary, or can be done fairly by the existing Baathist party? For all of the emotions associated with "colonialism", the British did leave a legacy of national administration in each of it's former colonial states. Or would you prefer that the US simply walk away?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Sure, Nadia. Assume sanctions end tomorrow. What's the solution? If you cannot come up with a solution for a peaceful end to Hussein's regime (or that it's even necessary for a change) and can't even admit that if left unchecked Hussein would pursue an active program of WMD, your arguments for the poor suffering Iraqi people do not carry weight.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, Seminole, but how does that answer my query about how much of a threat Iraq genuinely is ? You seem to perceive of it as this country filled to the brim with nuclear arsenals. Have the inspectors discovered these arsenals? Do you honestly believe that, even when the US was arming Iraq to the teeth from 1980 to 1988 and yet the latter was unable to inflict a resounding defeat against Iran, that somehow Iraq still manages to pose a serious threat today ? Please enlighten me as to how on earth this is still possible...?
Beautiful. Everyone in this thread has been asking me all along ‘Nadia wouldn’t you be happy to see Saddam gone? Then the sanctions will be lifted.’ Right, whatever. So we have twelve years of the most destructive trade embargo in the history of humanity, 1.5 million dead corpses to show for it (of whom 500,000 were just tots), and what do we have to say at the end of it? That even in a post-Saddam era, we will have a bloody “review” of sanctions, perhaps going so far as to “suspend” them. i can’t digest this utter irrationality - LIFT, not suspend, not review, not ponder, not contemplate, not study - LIFT the bloody trade embargo. Everyone is so obsessed with Saddam, you all are unable to comprehend what is claiming the lives of more than 160 kids each day.
This is precisely what i was afraid of all along - the past decade we have seen a consistent shifting of the goalposts vis-a-vis the terms for the lifting of sanctions, as well as shifting of goalposts vis-a-vis Iraq’s precise obligations towards the Security Council. Even if Saddam is dead and buried, most likely the US administration will still implement a six month waiting period prior to ‘suspending’ the sanctions. The utter hypocrisy makes me sick.
Please educate me as to how the US "armed Iraq to the teeth" from 1980 to 1988? Have not seen a shred of information on this, despite many threads and discussions.
And, as far as the sanctions, I would have italicized the word "immediate", and would ask you why all sanctions on chemical weapons for example should be lifted?
myvoice and Ohioguy are point on. A UN lead coalition of players will be needed to over look Iraq while a sort of nation rebuilding process occurs, ohioguy has listed such a plan. True Iraqi leaders will come from within Iraq, their names and faces aren't known simply because they can't say how they feel or the Saddam regime would have them killed. The transition from Dictatorship to Democracy will take time and the time for that transition to start is now. A plan has been offered to avoid war, one that enables the Iraq people to choose their own leaders, and one that removes a threat to humanity. When will there be a protest against the war Saddam has waged against the people of Iraq!?
OhioGuy, we have been through the US-arming-Iraq during the 1980s discussion previously. There are quite a few "shreds of information" regarding this in previous threads, particularly ones started by Malik73 and Judge^Mentull.
Regarding CW - you can place an embargo on those. No where in the ten points you listed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies does it state a complete lifting of sanctions, whether civilian or military. All it states is an 'immediate review', 'suspend', or 'partially lift'. How immediate do they mean - let's count in terms of numbers of dead babies. Is 10,000 sufficient? This was not my previous position but now infact i believe military sanctions should also be lifted from Iraq - enough of this BS. Until and unless all countries in the region are made to disarm, it is not sufficiently rational IMHO to keep Iraq under the weight of military sanctions. Paragraph XIV of Resolution 687 should be implemented in its entirety - regional disarmament first and foremost. Besides this point, why does CSIS not state that there should be an immediate lifting of sanctions in a post-Saddam era?
Under The Dome, so in effect you would leave Iraq politically in limbo in a post-Saddam era? For how long?
What happens to the representation of Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis within the government? What happens to all those in the Iraqi govt. - the lower-level political officials, such as Tariq Aziz? Where do you keep them? Do you give them exile; if so, in which country? Do you try them as well in the Hague? What happens to the autonomous Kurdish regions? Do you grant them full independence? If so, how do you allay Turkish fears?
You may have to read the links that I provide, instead of just the summary of the 10 points. The piece that I quoted goes into great detail about the breadth of US and UN laws and regualtions that would have to be waived immediately to allow relief and humanitarian assistance to begin flowing. They are recommending that these reviews begin preconflict so that there is no delay post conflict.
Please further review:
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
9. Begin an immediate review of sanctions against Iraq and prepare
necessary documentation to suspend or partially lift those sanctions.
In order for the United States to mobilize an effective post-conflict humanitarian
and reconstruction response in Iraq, certain provisions of the Iraq Sanctions Act of
1990 (P.L. 101-513) (ISA) will need to be waived. The ISA and certain other U.S.
statutory provisions relating to Iraq’s status as a terrorism list country and WMD
concerns prohibit inter alia all U.S. imports from and exports to Iraq (except for
certain humanitarian goods as part of the Oil-for-Food program); all foreign military
sales to Iraq; all commercial arms sales to Iraq; the exports of dual use items to Iraq;
all forms of U.S. assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act and the annual foreign
operations appropriations acts, other than emergency medical and humanitarian
assistance; and require U.S. opposition to international financial institutions’ loans or
assistance to Iraq. The ISA also blocks all Iraqi property in the United States—
freezing Iraqi bank accounts, for example.
The President can waive the ISA’s provisions, upon 15-, 30-, or 60-day advance
notice, depending on the sanctions to be waived and the determinations he is
required to make. New legislation, or use of extraordinary presidential authorities,
would be required to waive certain other sanctions. Although it would probably be
desirable to retain certain sanctions even after a regime change—such as restrictions
on sales and exports of military items and nuclear regulatory commission licenses—
some provisions will have to be waived in order for U.S. government officials,
humanitarian organizations, and private citizens to participate in the post-conflict
reconstruction effort.
A working group should be convened immediately involving all relevant U.S.
government agencies—in particular the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury and
Commerce—to begin discussions on which U.S. sanctions should be lifted after a
conflict and to start preparing necessary documents. The goal is to prevent undue
delay of American humanitarian and reconstruction responses in a post-conflict Iraq.
UN Security Council Resolution 661 (August 1990) is the foundation of the
international sanctions regime. Resolution 661 prohibits import of Iraqi goods and
most exports to Iraq, and freezes Iraq’s funds and assets. Resolution 687 (April
1991) expressly added weapons and military materiel to the list of goods prohibited
for export. Subsequent resolutions have built on these and tied lifting the sanctions
to satisfaction of demands regarding payment of debt and compensation, weapons of
mass destruction, and repudiation of terrorism. Resolution 986 (1995) allowed for
limited sale of oil in exchange for humanitarian goods—the Oil-for-Food program—
and this remains the only permitted avenue of goods out of and into Iraq. Though it
may be possible to continue to provide humanitarian goods through the Oil-for-
Food program, further reconstruction needs will demand at least a partial lifting of
the UN sanctions.
Because these sanctions can only be lifted through a Security Council resolution, a
UN working group should be convened immediately to begin discussions and
drafting language to lift those sanctions necessary to allow a robust humanitarian and
reconstruction response.
Nadia, your asking for answers that can't be answered fully until the first step is done. The Iraqi people need to be involved that much is clear or it won't work and to get to that first step the Saddam regime must be disposed of. With any model or plan you can think of problems and barriers and at the end of the day you'll have a growing list of questions rather than answers. I understand that you look before you jump but you don't sit while there's a fire coming at you either.
>>Resolution 687 (April 1991) expressly added weapons and military materiel to the list of goods prohibited for export. Subsequent resolutions have built on these and tied lifting the sanctions to satisfaction of demands regarding payment of debt and compensation, weapons of mass destruction, and repudiation of terrorism.<<
OG,
Thank you. It makes more sense now. The recommendations should have started by now, in order to be able to get the ball rolling (vis-a-vis humanitarian needs) post-conflict. Bush has been successful in getting quite a few domestic security-related issues passed through, i don't imagine lifting the sanctions should present much of a problem - atleast not through the Security Council as it is only the US that has been keen so far to keep them imposed. (The UK will follow suit if the US does). Therefore, there is no excuse to not have sanctions immediately lifted in a post-Saddam era.
UTD, Sorry but i don't see any fire; Iraq has been pretty much disarmed. i suggest the fire is located outside of Iraq's borders in countries far more well-equipped. No one can give me a name, no one can suggest what will be done in terms of ethnic representation in a new Iraqi government. Seems a bit haphazard to me. With Afghanistan, we conveniently had a Hamid Karzai waiting in the wings; shouldn't there be an interim government currently established outside of Iraq, that will assume power or better yet, a genuine plan for the restoration of elections? Will we leave the entire security monitoring apparatus to UN peacekeepers? Bear in mind that geographically it's a huge country so that can present formidable challenges. Who is going to pay for all this additional security?
Apart from how and when to militarily target the country, it does not seem to me that much has been carefully thought out.
Please READ what I post. The CSIS paper that I cited is sponsored by:
A Wiser Peace drew extensively on the excellent work of the Post-Conflict
Reconstruction Project, a collaboration between the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) and the Association of the United States Army (AUSA).
Its “Post-Conflict Reconstruction Task Framework” and numerous white papers
provided the intellectual underpinnings to the recommendations contained in this
report.
The authors of the report are:
Barton, a senior adviser and co-director of the CSIS Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project, formerly served as United Nations deputy high commissioner for refugees in Geneva and as the first director of the Office of Transition Initiatives at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Crocker served as an attorney-adviser at the State Dept. and as the deputy U.S. special representative for the Southeast Europe Initiative in Rome.
It would seem like Post reconstruction issues have been thought out for some time. How can you even suggest that a government should be established in exile? that is the least democratic way to approach this.....Let's hope that the UN can actually get it's head out of it's butt and actually do something right.
i did read it, OG, don't worry. >>How can you even suggest that a government should be established in exile?<<
That's precisely what the US admin. has been doing by courting the numerous Iraqi opposition groups.
Anyways, i think i have fought enough in this thread. Bottom line - let's hope whatever occurs, occurs for the benefit of the people of Iraq first and foremost and that they are given their fundamental right of being able to choose what type of government they want in Iraq whether or not it's one that is perceived as friendly with us.
"let's hope... they are given their fundamental right of being able to choose what type of government they want in Iraq whether or not it's one that is perceived as friendly with us."
I agree, but who is "us"? I thought you were with "them"? :)
So we have twelve years of the most destructive trade embargo in the history of humanity, 1.5 million dead corpses to show for it (of whom 500,000 were just tots), and what do we have to say at the end of it? That even in a post-Saddam era, we will have a bloody “review” of sanctions, perhaps going so far as to “suspend” them. i can’t digest this utter irrationality - LIFT, not suspend, not review, not ponder, not contemplate, not study - LIFT the bloody trade embargo. Everyone is so obsessed with Saddam, you all are unable to comprehend what is claiming the lives of more than 160 kids each day.