| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Holbrooke: Annan to bail out Bush |
| 2006-06-28 |
| In a little-noticed announcement in President Bush's news conference on June 14, the day he returned from Iraq, he said that he would send two personal emissaries to New York to consult with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on the political and economic future of Iraq. The next day, still with remarkably little public attention, Philip Zelikow, the counselor of the State Department, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt met with Annan and his deputy, Mark Malloch Brown, at the secretary general's Sutton Place residence. There was no one else present. So let's guess who leaked to Clintonista Holbrooke... The two presidential envoys asked Annan to use his unique "convening powers" to help organize international meetings that would lead (by this fall, the Americans hope) to the unveiling of a new "Iraq Compact" -- an agreement between the Iraqi government and major international donors that would commit Baghdad to a series of political and economic reforms in return for substantially more international aid. (Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called Annan the same day to make an identical request.) It is, however, impossible not to note the irony and the implications of what has happened in the past two weeks between Washington and the United Nations. Once again, an administration that has underfunded, undersupported and undermined the United Nations has turned to it, almost in desperation, for help. Or asked it to demonstrate that it is useless. All depends on how things turn out. The lesson should be clear: Despite the enormously self-destructive actions of many other member states, especially the group of developing nations called the G-77, the United Nations still serves U.S. foreign policy interests in many important ways. That's not clear yet. Not only Iraq but also Iran, Darfur, Afghanistan and the difficult negotiations just started over Kosovo's final status -- all issues of vital importance to the United States -- have now ended up in the United Nations. to little or no effect in each case. To weaken this institution further, as has happened in recent years, serves no clear American national security interest. To strengthen it would make it more valuable to the United States and to every nation that seeks conflict resolution, stability and economic progress. With the maneuvering over the selection of Annan's successor underway, it is time for Washington -- and this must include Congress -- to put behind it a sorry period of confusion and offer the United Nations more support, both financial and political, in return for the things it needs in Iraq and elsewhere. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #7 #6 anon2u - I believe he already has a position. See #5 Captain America. ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-06-28 22:37 |
| #6 Wasn't he in on that secret meeting for Bore before the 2000 election? He was angling for some position..... |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-06-28 19:44 |
| #5 What rewarmed bullshit! This is about donor countries, who in 2004 agreed to forgive Iraqi debt and commit to fund the new Iraq, reneging. For anyone with an ounce of historical insight, this was the campaign that longtime advisor, James A. Baker III, made in 2004. The asshole countries who pledged donations have not ponied up. Holbrooke is a complete asshole and has his nose firmly up Kofi's ass. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-06-28 18:28 |
| #4 The two presidential envoys asked Annan to use his unique "convening powers"... Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's...CONVENING MAN!!! |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-06-28 14:59 |
| #3 To strengthen it would make it more valuable to the United States and to every nation that seeks conflict resolution, stability and economic progress. To strengthen it would serve fatal to any nation that wants to keep its children un-buggered, its sovereignty respected, and its wallet unopened! Bolton, put a bullet in the thing's head and be done with it. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-06-28 14:47 |
| #2 Not only Iraq but also Iran, Darfur, Afghanistan and the difficult negotiations just started over Kosovo's final status -- all issues of vital importance to the United States -- have now ended up in the United Nations. (to little or no effect in each case.) To weaken this institution further I'm not sure this organization could get much weaker, but the author's contention is clearly not founded in any realistic understanding of the situation. Holbrooke is an obvious supporter of the UN and its failed policies around the world. Everywhere that Holbrooke mentions above, when the UN has interfered in the situation, the result has always been the lessening of freedom and democracy, the reinforcement of extremist policies and dictatorships, and the continued suffering of the very people the UN is ostensibly attempting to help. The truth is the UN specializes in anti-Americanism, and is hardly pro-democracy, pro-freedom, or even pro-people. They support the most ruthless dictatorships, the most ruthless ethnic cleansing, and the most ruthless regimes and policies rather than the pursuit of freedom and democracy as promulgated by the United States and its allies. In Iraq the UN's interference has the new government negotiating with the very people responsible for thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Iraqi civilian casualties rather than bolstering freedom and democracy and rooting out the killers. In Iran, the UN's interference has bolstered and enabled the mullocracy and reinforced the hardliners to the extent that they now believe they can become a regional power and challenge the forces of freedom and democracy. In Darfur, the UN's interference can reasonably be said to have reinforced the governments hardline stand, supported the terrorist factions, and contributed to the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of civilians. In Afghanistan, the UN's interference can be said to have given rise to the Taliban in the first place, and to have significantly contributed to their current attempts to come back to power through an insurgency. The UN's interference can also be said to have contributed to the escape of bin Ladin from Tora Bora, and his continued avoidance of US, Afghan, and Pakistani forces in the Waziristan region. In addition, the UN's interference can be said to be contributing to the rise of insurgents inside Pakistan and to be contributing to their reinforcement of cross-border Taliban insurgents into Afghanistan. The only way the UN could get any weaker would be for the US to withdraw its funding, all of it, and to boot them the hell out of NYC. All of this is only my humble opinion, of course, but those are my (and your) tax dollars going to fund this corrupt and criminal organization. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-06-28 11:11 |
| #1 I respectfully disagree, we don't get jack shit from the U.N. We get jerked around, stymied, and backstabbed. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-06-28 10:57 |