| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Diplomats at U.N. at Odds on Postwar Iraq |
| 2003-10-07 |
| UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Members of the U.N. Security Council on Monday suggested changes to a U.S. draft resolution on Iraq that has been criticized for not giving the United Nations a big enough role. But the council remained divided over how to rebuild Iraq's government. "Well Gunter, I guess we earned our per-diems today!" Council diplomats portrayed Monday's session as a constructive exchange of ideas over the revised draft, which called for a slightly expanded U.N. role. The draft appeared headed toward acceptance until U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said last week he wants only an ``indispensable role'' for the U.N. body or no political role at all. I'll take "no political role" for $800, Alex. The United States will now take council members' suggestions and amendment ideas back to Washington, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said. Neither he nor other diplomats would detail the changes being sought. ``We've reached a time to take a brief pause for everybody to digest what had been said and see how it affected our thinking,'' said Negroponte, who is also the president of the council for the month of October. When a reporter asked him whether the survival of the draft was at stake, he said: ``It has no implications along the lines you are suggesting, simply a pause to evaluate where we stand with respect to the draft.'' "I can say no more!" Diplomats said the 15-member council spent Monday's session Several council members agreed the next step - seeing what the United States brings back to the table - will be the most important for the fate of the resolution. ``The United Nations should have a larger role, a leading role in the process,'' said Chilean Ambassador Heraldo Munoz. ``We should be as clear as possible on the timetable. Those two things are very important to us.'' "And in return, of course, we offer nothing!" A French diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the United States did not appear ready to incorporate changes made by France and Germany, two leading opponents of the war. Wotta brilliant deduction! But Germany's U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said the discussions on the resolution were likely to continue but many delegates wanted the council to take Annan's criticism of the resolution into account. ``If the council is united, the political signal is stronger,'' he said after the meeting. In a way, if we stand alone the political signal is stronger, too. The French diplomat said that progress could be made if there was a totally new approach to the resolution, an idea that Annan has suggested and one United States is unlikely to accept. Annan wants a lead role for the United Nations if the world body were to play any political role in Iraq. Hey! The Daily Double!™ Whether there really is room for compromise is unclear because of the fundamental differences concerning two postwar issues - when to transfer power to Iraqis and what role the United Nations should play in stabilizing and rebuilding the war-battered country. France, along with Germany and Russia, has led the push for a quick handover of power to the Iraqis and a stronger role for the United Nations. French President Jacques Chirac had said last week he was disappointed with the latest draft. Chirac had spoken after Annan ruled out a U.N. political role as long as American and British forces are running Iraq. Annan made his views known to the council on Thursday. Annan wants the United States to hand over sovereignty within five months to an Iraqi provisional government, which could then take the two years or more the United Nations has found necessary to create a viable constitution and organize elections, a senior U.N. official said Friday. Why don't we let the Iraqis write their own constitution? With Iraqis in charge, Annan says, extremist attacks would hopefully diminish, other countries would be more likely to contribute troops and money and the United Nations, if asked, could help oversee the political transition to a democracy, according to the official. With the UN in charge we'll see more boomers and dead-ender attacks. At the heart of Annan's concern is security for U.N. staff in Iraq following two bombings at world body headquarters in Baghdad in a month that killed 22 people and injured more than 150. The secretary-general has pulled out more than 90 percent of the U.N.'s international staff, leaving only a few dozen essential people in the country. And it ought to stay that way. But the United States rejected Annan's recommendation, sticking instead to its agenda of having the U.S.-picked Iraqi Governing Council adopt a constitution, hopefully within six months, then hold elections six months after that. Power would be relinquished only after an elected government is installed. The U.S. draft resolution on Iraq asks both the United Nations and the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to help the Governing Council adopt a constitution, hold elections and train civil servants. It endorses a step-by-step transfer of authority to an Iraqi interim administration but sets no timetable. Annan is willing to risk putting significant numbers of U.N. staff back in the country - but only if the United Nations is playing ``an indispensable role.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell assured Annan on Friday that the Bush administration is trying to assign the United Nations a significant role in Iraq's future. "Marvin, I need a word that rhymes with indispensable." "Well, Mr. Secretary, there's 'despicable'." "That, Marvin, is why you're not Secretary of State." "Well sir, it DOES rhyme." "That it does, Marvin, that it does." |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 Members of the U.N. Security Council on Monday suggested changes to a U.S. draft resolution on Iraq that has been criticized for not giving the United Nations a big enough role. This is all laughable. The U.S. does all the heavy lifting and the SC jerkoffs want a role "big enough"? The only response that this deserves is an image of a big, fat middle finger. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-10-7 4:12:10 PM |
| #6 The UN is an anti-World Body of asinine autocrats, boring bystanders, callow corruption, despicable despots, egregious elitists, farking French, gutless gyrators, hateful harpies, inane imitators, jackoff Jew-haters, kinky kleptomanics, lame lapdogs, misogynistic multilateralists, nattering numbnuts,obfuscating onanists, prevaricating pussies,quixotic Quislings, rabid rapists, skilled sycophants, transcendant thieves, unctuous usurpers, vaccuous vermin, waffling wimps, xenodocheionologistic xenomaniacs, yeasty yammerers, zelophobic zoilists Nice! You got the whole alphabet! |
| Posted by: Atrus 2003-10-7 2:16:00 PM |
| #5 unfortunately the french can use Kofis words to sway the fence sitters - chile, Mexico, Angola, etc. Instead of France being isolated, its now got important support. Kofi really betrayed us on this one - in previous few months he had maintained some distance from the French on Iraq. OTOH Turkish willingness to participate in Iraq really helps - we need a UNSC resolution less now, and less urgently in terms of time. Also i think everyone is digesting the political implications of the Kay report - does this help the French (no WMDS found) or the US (lots of obvious violations of UNSC res 1441)? Also the situation on the ground continues to evolve - US deaths steady or declining VERY slowly, but no more big bombing attacks, power back to prewar levels, etc. All this is background that effects negotiating leverage. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-10-7 11:55:56 AM |
| #4 I don't think Cough-ee is part of the SC, is he? So why should his views be "taken into account"? He can sit at the back of the bus with the other General Assembly losers and STFU... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-10-7 11:45:01 AM |
| #3 New Improved Revised U.S. Resolution to the U.N. Security Council: GO FARK YOURSELF! The UN (including France) would only surrender Iraq back to the Saddam Loyalists and/or the Jihaldist (for a price - see 'Oil for Food Program'). It is our responsibility to protect the Iraqi people now and give them a chance at freedom and democracy. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-10-7 9:18:24 AM |
| #2 ``indispensable role’’,What a crock.The U.N.(Useless Ninneys)couldn't run away fast enoungh the first time things get rough on them.How in hell are they going to get anything done if they can't handle the pain when the going gets tough? |
| Posted by: Raptor 2003-10-7 8:03:58 AM |
| #1 I give the in-line commentary a 9.9, Steve - great work! As for this interminable UN engagement, pfeh. Reduce funding and reduce activity - namely doing anything but vetoing idiotic resolutions that come before the UNSC. Initiate nothing, volunteer nothing, engage no one in this venue. It is corrupt and pointless and all our efforts do is give Al Guardian something to spin. The UN is an anti-World Body of asinine autocrats, boring bystanders, callow corruption, despicable despots, egregious elitists, farking French, gutless gyrators, hateful harpies, inane imitators, jackoff Jew-haters, kinky kleptomanics, lame lapdogs, misogynistic multilateralists, nattering numbnuts,obfuscating onanists, prevaricating pussies,quixotic Quislings, rabid rapists, skilled sycophants, transcendant thieves, unctuous usurpers, vaccuous vermin, waffling wimps, xenodocheionologistic xenomaniacs, yeasty yammerers, zelophobic zoilists. |
| Posted by: .com 2003-10-7 5:30:01 AM |