| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Iraq-Jordan | |||
| Iraqis Divided Over U.N. Role in Gov't | |||
| 2004-03-15 | |||
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A week after Iraqi leaders put aside their differences and signed an interim constitution, differences have resurfaced. This time it's over what role, if any, the United Nations should play in the search for a government that will take over from the U.S.-led coalition on June 30. Iraqi officials and a source close to the U.S.-sponsored political process said that influential Shiite members of the Governing Council don't want the U.N. team of experts that visited Iraq last month to be invited back to help.
Brahimi's report was compiled after a weeklong visit to Iraq last month by his team of U.N. election experts. "Lakhdar Brahimi has achieved what the United States wanted from him," charged Hamed al-Bayati, a spokesman for the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the leading Shiite political party. "I don't recall anything agreed that suggests that the U.N. will be invited back to help. It may be just a common presumption." Opposition by the Shiites, who have 13 of the council's 25 seats, to a U.N. role is countered by the enthusiasm of their Sunni Arab and Kurdish colleagues - each with five seats on the council. The Sunni Arabs and Kurds see the U.N.'s involvement as essential. Their differences are fast evolving into a new political battle that follows bitter wrangling over parts of the interim constitution. The United States agrees with them, arguing that U.N. participation will give the process legitimacy and possibly head off any objections from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, the Shiites' most powerful cleric. Washington is adamant that the June 30 date be respected. Underlining its resolve, it has sent a senior White House official, Ambassador Robert Blackwill of the president's national security staff, to Baghdad to help push the process forward. On Wednesday, according to the source involved in the political process, Sunni council member and senior statesman Adnan Pachachi presented the council with a draft letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan thanking United Nations for Brahimi's report and citing a clause in the interim constitution that envisages possible "consultation" with the United Nations in the search for an interim government. However, powerful Shiites on the council opposed the letter, forcing Pachachi to withdraw it, the source said on condition of anonymity.
| |||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #10 I will crawl away to my deep dark den and lick my wounds... *whimper* C'mon. It just does not work. The objections you raise to trying to replace it with something that does work are unconvincing as no one has tried it yet. You pull US funding - let the Saudis or someone else pick up the slack - and pull the "teeth" the US provides the UNSC and what is the UN? The nicest thing I can think of is pointless debating society. Formulate something sensible that can work - a semi-permanent coalition. Put your money and muscle behind it. Per a new set of standards for membership, complete with the means of adding / upgrading / downgrading / removing a member state based upon objective criteria, offer membership to those who actually qualify. If nobody fitting the criteria wants to join, fine - we go it alone or build ad hoc coalitions where interests coincide. I suggest that would not be the case. Most who understand and practice realpolitik would take up the offer, if extended. It would be a G7 or G8, or whatever, of Action States -- but not the absurd G199 of the UN. Sorry we don't agree. Sorry if I give you heartburn - that's just an unintended bonus, since you continue to deny the obvious and set the RB standard for hard-headed-ness! So SUE ME. IN CAPITAL LETTERS! You're a good sport and I know you've make an even better ally in this worthy cause - you just have to get over the DEAD UN. It sucks like an F5, bro! Grins & Best Regs! ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-15 10:55:36 PM |
| #9 And in related news, neighbors debate welcoming child molester back into the neighborhood... |
| Posted by: Hyper 2004-3-15 8:36:41 PM |
| #8 look dot com. The General assembly sucks - at least on most issues of international politics that i care about (though it doesnt suck as much now as it did 30 years ago - even the GA managed to repeal the Zionism is Racism resolution) The UNSC is a different matter. Its largely run by the 5 great powers. ANY meaningful replacement would have to take into account the views of the great powers. Could I imagine a better, more geopolitically realistic UNSC - with less weight for France (but probably also less weight for Britain) and with Germany and Japan on it - sure - but that wouldnt materially change what the UNSC does and has done. Would i like a greater weight for the US - sure, but even that wouldnt get the UNSC that you want. Now given that do i think we give the UNSC a veto over our FP - NO I DO NOT. I DID NOT AND DO NOT think it was a mistake to defy the UNSC on Iraq. OTOH I also DONT think its a waste of effort to try to work with the UNSC. And I would suggest that Kofi Annan is NOT always unresponsive to the US - he responds the UNSC perm5, but he also knows who pays the bills, and also responds to the institution needs of the UN. And i would look at the work of a Lashkar Brahimi, or Serge De Valeira, on its own - not EVERY UN official represents all UN officials, or the UN GA, or Libya and Myanmar. I would like YOU to focus on how the UN actually works as an institution. Im certainly open to UN reform - Im not sure that any plan YOU would like to see could get support from any great powers other than the US. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-3-15 5:44:18 PM |
| #7 mhw - Cool. Um, how about a refund? Lessee, instead of paying 1/4 of the UN budget, hows about we pay 1/160th or so? That'd be fair. We could still "vote" and "watch" the UN and remain aware of where they intend to fuck things up, but not have to pony up the cash to fund it. Would that work for you? Shit, I'd even give up that preciousssss UNSC chair for a fair deal... but that's just me. ;-> |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-15 4:47:22 PM |
| #6 "I feel that there is coolness from my Shiite colleagues and from his eminence Ayatollah al-Sistani toward the United Nations," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish council member. Kind of a "where the &#^$ were YOU for thirty friggin' years?" vibe there, maybe? |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-3-15 4:31:42 PM |
| #5 I'm going to have to lean toward siding with LH on this. A continuing UN role in the transition has a number of pluses: it mandates more direct assistance from the UN (medicine, ag equipment, etc.), it allows a outside enemy that the various ethnic groups can talk to when things get too hot to talk to each other, it allows a vehicle to convey ideas indirectly, it allows certain govts. a cover to provide some assistance that would be hard to get otherwise and best of all, the continued presense of the UN in the transition makes for pressure on the UN to come clean in the 'oil for palaces' scandel. There are some downsides too but they are far less than the upsides. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-3-15 12:05:45 PM |
| #4 The UN is not now, nor has it ever been, the "friend" of the Kurds. In fact, in UN forums, the historically recent screwing of the Kurds episodes have received the Official Stamp of Approval, Moral Rectitude, and International Legitimacy. LH - give up, bro. The UN sucks like I wish my cheap little Hoover could. It is, in a fanciful way, a sort of futures market thugocracy. Mob Rule by the gamut, from Constitutional Republics to Brutal Dictatorships... and there sure are a lot more of the latter than the former. It is fatally structurally flawed - and the inmates have been running the institution for quite awhile, now, don't you agree? The day you (finally - 'tis inevitable, methinks!) agree and we start designing a replacement that demonstrably "learns" from the failures of the League and the UN, will be a happy day here in RB! You can kick off the festivities any time you like! ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-15 11:19:54 AM |
| #3 "They charge that veteran U.N. diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, the team's Algerian leader, toed the U.S. policy line " and the Kurds want the UN in. Not sure reflexive hostility to the UN makes sense on this one (though i realize that for some hatred of the UN and all it represents is more important than success for US foreign policy) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-3-15 10:54:43 AM |
| #2 I know ye didn ask for my opinion, buh here it is.. seriously doubt the info will get out any time soon, or if it does, it will get pushed down low, this sorta stuff could be useful when it comes to swinging votes in the un |
| Posted by: Dcreeper 2004-3-15 5:47:59 AM |
| #1 Steve, in your opinion (others can chime in as well)do you think enough pressure can be brought to bear to find out the true facts of UN involvement in the UN/Saddam oil scam? This should never be allowed to rest until the truth is found and published. TW |
| Posted by: Chiner 2004-3-15 5:32:16 AM |