| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| Debating how to put Iraq back together again | |
| 2003-03-23 | |
| Slightly Edited for brevity After the bitter diplomatic battle in the United Nations over whether to go to war in Iraq, another could be shaping up. This time, however, it could split the closest allies: Britain and the US. The issue: what to do afterwards. US plans for Iraqi reconstruction suggest a minimal role for the UN. Britain, siding this time with its partners in the European Union, sees UN administration as essential to the postwar plans. "We believe that the UN must continue to play a central role during and after the current crisis. The UN system has a unique capacity and practical experience in co-ordinating assistance in post-conflict states," EU leaders said on Thursday night. Unique capacity for graft and sex for food programs. Thomas Carothers, who follows the issue closely at the Carnegie Endowment think-tank in Washington, says the current US plan calls for something quite distinct: "This will be a different kind of occupation [from what] we have been used to seeing. It will be a military occupation rather than an international administration." hmmm, I thought we were going to set up an Iraqi Interim Authority? hmm...I guess the question is when will that occur. Leaving out the UN would be a big problem for Britain, at least according to Clare Short, Britain's minister of international development. "It is no secret that in this [US] administration, affection for the UN is limited and there have been speeches about US military governors àla Japan. But for the UK, this is international law. Hasn't she stepped down yet? What does Tony have to say? "Without a UN mandate, any belligerents would be an occupying army and have absolutely no right in international law to change any of the institutional arrangements of the country toldya so. But if the Kurd is right about the Iraqi Interim Authority, maybe we've already blocked that move. Very firm commitments have been given to our parliament. Very firm agreements have been made between President Bush and our prime minister," she said in an interview. Could you be more specific? Bush In other words, we have NO intention of allowing the UN to take charge. Not for the first time, a mixed message on policy is emerging from Washington oh, like that never happens from Britian, France, Russia or Turkey One reason for this is that, despite statements from officials suggesting decisions have been made, there is much still to be decided. So far, the Pentagon plans a military administration in the immediate aftermath of the war. That would be headed by General Tommy Franks, head of central command, or a deputy, the Arabic-speaking Lt Gen John Abizaid. While the military commander would handle security, a central administration responsible for civil affairs would be created under Jay Garner, a retired general. Existing Iraqi ministries would report to Gen Garner. A team of US "advisers", many of them retired officials from the state and defence departments and the Central Intelligence Agency, would be flown in. They would operate within ministries, among other things vetting those staff seen as corrupt or as having close ties to the regime of Mr Hussein.
seems a valid point The US would pay the salaries of about 2m civil servants, including teachers and health workers, a senior defence department official says. The US would also pay a "good portion" of Iraq's regular army — not the Republican Guard loyal to Mr Hussein — for reconstruction work ordered by US-run committees. Another senior official says the US is considering using the regular army as a constabulary force. To pay these salaries, and meet other costs, the US is likely to use Iraqi assets that have been frozen in the US: the Treasury this week seized more than $1.4bn frozen since 1991 in US banks. An estimated $600m is estimated to be in Britain and 10 other countries. After that, the US is likely to want access to oil revenues - which until this week have been A big dispute is raging behind the scenes in Washington over who should head the IIA. Many hawks in the administration think the job should go to Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress. Many Iraqis — together with US officials (apparently these are non-hawks?) in the state department (ah...those non-hawks) and elsewhere - are resisting the Chalabi solution. A member of the Kurdish opposition says: "For the US to bring in an outside figure and say this is our [equivalent of Afghan leader Hamad] Karzai is not going to work. I hope the US resists the temptation of such a surgical solution. This is not about king-making. Iraq needs a system of checks and balances." Wow, somebody should listen to this guy! The administration has in recent weeks been looking elsewhere for a head of the IIA, including Adnan Pachachi, a former foreign minister. Marc Grossman, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said this week he hoped the new Iraqi authority would quickly recognise Israel. Good idea Marc, let's start with the most contentious issue first. Second we'll tackle equal rights for women. Only then should we move on to issues we might more readily agree on. Good thinking. Barham Saleh, prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, says he thinks a new Iraqi government would tear up oil contracts signed with the French and Russians "and reward those countries who helped in our liberation, not those who stood in the way". heh, heh, bet that's got ol' Igor's attention However, UK officials still see a role here for the UN, either leading an administration or, at the least, managing some important humanitarian and reconstruction roles. Certainly, if notice the use of the word if here! the US expects other countries to finance elements of the reconstruction, they are likely to demand a say in how it is done. Ah...but what if the IIA will be looking for private bids instead.... Mr Carothers says leaving people out of the political process with some kind of power - either money or guns - could sabotage the process. Ultimately, the US military, in its eagerness to leave the country, may not much care in the end to whom it hands over power, he says. "Is the US intention really to create a democratic government or would the US military be satisfied with a government that's not democratic but that's capable of keeping order that could be close to remnants of the Iraqi regime?" I think GW has made it very clear what his intent is, and so far, he's been a man of his word. | |
| Posted by:Becky |
| #5 Look how successful the UN has been getting the Palestinians back on their feet. Like about FORTY years! The UN will simply want to create a permanent food for oil program, and continue to divert "humanitarian" aid to paleo bombers. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-23 19:02:34 |
| #4 "Diesel for Weasel"? Lets call em the Diesel Weasels, those that opposed military action in Iraq on the basis of economic ties to Saddam and his satanic regime... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-23 11:26:15 |
| #3 "We'd like to replace the 'Oil for Food' program with a new program we call 'Oil for Weasel'." |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-23 11:17:35 |
| #2 An old Chinese proverb: No tickee, no washee The UN had its chance. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-03-23 14:42:00 |
| #1 Things will be unsettled for the first 90-120 days following the collapse of the Iraqi military. In the meantime, military troops will be patrolling the country, digging up minefields, doing hasty repairs, mopping up small groups that might continue to hold out, rounding up criminals and looters, and generally tidying up the country following all that scrap metal being tossed around. There's no way an "interim government" could function until that's done. Anyone thinking otherwise can't see the sunshine. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-03-23 13:44:54 |