| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| UK may back new UN move on Iraq |
| 2003-08-04 |
| The UK government is for the first time talking openly about backing a new United Nations security council resolution on Iraq with the aim of giving India, Pakistan, Turkey and other states the domestic political cover they need to contribute to a multinational force. Oh dear, someone’s getting wobbly. As the US and UK look at ways of sharing the military burden of post-war Iraq, a top government officials has said preliminary negotiations over such a resolution could begin at the UN within a few weeks. In an interview with the Financial Times, John Sawers, the Foreign Office’s political director, said : "We are exploring among ourselves - and we are exploring with the Americans - what the pros and cons [of a new UN resolution] might be." Mr Sawers, who has just finished three months duty as the UK’s special representative in Iraq, acknowledged that governments in India, Pakistan and Turkey would find it much easier to send troops to Iraq if they could tell their electorates that there was explicit UN authority to do so. However, he indicated that London and Washington were waiting to see what kind of demands France and Russia - two of the permanent five security council members - might make about boosting the UN role in Iraq. "We are all conscious of There are concerns in London and Washington that France will insist on the UN having a far bigger role in Iraq than even the UN secretariat wants. I’m sure M. DeVillepin (who is still allegedly considered a man) will have a lot to say. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #27 Hey Steve--Monsieur de Villepin may be moving to California where he will be protected by law for his prediliction for men's suits |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-8-4 10:21:54 PM |
| #26 China is, indeed, a fertile breeding ground - as you point out, and just about the least cooperative WHO member imaginable. Some of the things I've read indicated that this would have been a scientific curiosity, caught and contained quickly, had it originated almost anywhere else. The fact you have read the journals means you're infintely better informed than 99% of us - thanx for your take. Now if Hunta was native to China, we'd be in some deep shit. I read "The Coming Plague" about 7-8 yrs ago when it first came out and that sparked my |
| Posted by: ·com 2003-8-4 6:56:28 PM |
| #25 PD (oops, * com), I don't have any special insight on the WHO, SARS and China, other than what I've read from the CDC, the New England Journal of Medicine and the press. It does seem that the WHO was a little slow on the uptake (though Canada was much worse and paid for it), but the Chinese are the main culprits here. The usual Commie-inspired emphasis on secrecy at the expense of the citizenry is what let this spread initially. South China is a sea of virii and bacteria just waiting to infect humans. The close proximity of humans to agricultural livestock and birds, the ability of virii and bacteria to mutate, antibiotic pressure, and near 3rd-world standards for cleanliness and disinfection make these things inevitable. The WHO was lucky this time, because SARS (for all the hype) actually wasn't that infectious and wasn't that fatal. It would be better to get the politics out of the WHO, but I'll admit that it's nowhere near as bad as the UNHRC. It would be better to get a non-Communist government in China -- one that might actually give a damn about its people. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-8-4 3:42:50 PM |
| #24 LH,when you can get rid of the murdering dictators,the lovers of murdering dictators.When you can chase off the terrorists states and thier loverboys. Then I might think about going with the U.N. Until then the U.N.can go piss-up a rope. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-8-4 2:38:23 PM |
| #23 I'm against non-European, non-Anglosphere troops in greater than token amounts also for the following reasons Your reasons are valid as these people are smart enough to not let us use them as cannon fodder (which is the only military value they provide). |
| Posted by: SPQR 2755 2003-8-4 1:59:12 PM |
| #22 I'm against non-European, non-Anglosphere troops in greater than token amounts also for the following reasons Ditto. The record of Indian pacification efforts in Kashmir is of incompetence, corruption and an unending series of terrorist attacks over decades.* In a word, quagmire. And now they're going to show us how it's done in Iraq? Thanks, but no thanks... * Note also that the Sunnis might not necessarily be thrilled about having Hindu infidels patrolling the streets. Christians are at least people of the Book. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-4 1:44:43 PM |
| #21 I have to side with ZF. I'm against non-European, non-Anglosphere troops in greater than token amounts also for the following reasons: 1. Whenever we use foreign troops, there is either a front end or backend payment. Sometimes it is a loan. Sometimes it's credits for military equipment. Sometimes the money gets laundered through the UN, KFOR, or the MFO. But Uncle Sam always gets stuck with the bill. 2. In the past, armies other than the US and British have shown little motivation to get involved once the shooting starts. The Pakistanis in Somalia and the Dutch at Srbrenica come to mind immediately. 3. Our worst reserve units are several orders of magnitude better than their best conscript units. Taken together with #1 and #2 above, you would get more combat power for a lower economic cost -- especially once you take into account all the skimming (bribe taking!) that will inevitably accompany any of the wealth transfers described above. 4. Your typical third world leader and soldier aren't going to be much interested in nation building as evidenced by the fact that they aren't doing a very good job of building their own nations. At the very best, they would be neutral. At the worst, the graft and corruption endemic to those societies would have a negative effect on nation building. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-8-4 1:06:04 PM |
| #20 The Non-US Army occupation sectors are generally quiet ones - The US Marines, the British, Poles, etc. are deployed in the Sunni south. The sea the Sunni fighters swim in is in Baghdad and points north. They are most likely unable to operate in a hostile Shia environment. |
| Posted by: buwaya 2003-8-4 12:56:25 PM |
| #19 This is far from admin policy, who are looking for as many troops as they can get, if they can get them without UN auspices. Actually, it's a lot more qualified than that - the administration is looking for troops that don't have to be babysat. This is why half the Ukrainian army isn't on Iraqi soil - they'd just add to Saddam's target list. The weird thing is that they're not really targeting the other coalition members. By contrast, the Soviets made a point of targeting Hitler's allies, because they were typically ill-trained and under-supplied. Non-German sectors were where the Soviets made the biggest gains of the war. Saddam definitely needs to hire a better guerrilla war planner. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-4 11:50:07 AM |
| #18 "I suspect these are the same Iraqis who oppose us anyway." I suspect it will include Sunni Arabs who were either neutral to Saddam, or lukewarmly anti-Saddam - or even anti-saddam but not pro-US ,folks like blogger Salaam Pax, or like ex-FM Pachachi. Also probably at least some Shiites. Any international forces would be expected to support the iraqi governing council and continue policy of attacking Baathists - this would not represent appeasement. So you would oppose Ukrainians, if they could send a whole division? This is far from admin policy, who are looking for as many troops as they can get, if they can get them without UN auspices. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-4 11:34:11 AM |
| #17 why do you think corruption, racketereering and atrocities would be problems with Indian or Argentian troops, but not Ukrainian or Nicaraguan troops? I have a real problem with Ukrainian or Nicaraguan troops being deployed, but they're only token contingents. Having entire divisions of Indian or Pakistani troops in Iraq is asking for trouble - UN auspices or not. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-4 11:16:43 AM |
| #16 UN approval may not add legitimacy for you or me, or even for the people like the Kurds with whom we most sympathize in Iraq - but it probably does for many other Iraqis. I suspect these are the same Iraqis who oppose us anyway. Note that India and Pakistan were some of Saddam's biggest boosters. I really fail to see how appeasing the Baathists is going to get us anywhere - if anything, it will strengthen their hand by showing ordinary Iraqis who would otherwise help us that we're too weak to stay the course. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-4 11:14:07 AM |
| #15 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz on Tuesday told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that while the administration "would welcome any resolution that would make it easier for countries to contribute peacekeeping troops," he would be "very concerned" about one that would "put limitations on what Ambassador Bremer and our people can do in Iraq." this seems a pretty reasonable approach to me. zhang - why do you think corruption, racketereering and atrocities would be problems with Indian or Argentian troops, but not Ukrainian or Nicaraguan troops? And you seem to have misread my words - the goal is not to GIVE the UN legitimacy, its to give the occupation additional legitimacy. UN approval may not add legitimacy for you or me, or even for the people like the Kurds with whom we most sympathize in Iraq - but it probably does for many other Iraqis. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-4 11:09:34 AM |
| #14 The problem with having non-European allied troops in Iraq is a combination of corruption, racketeering and atrocities. We don't need any of these just to give the UN legitimacy. If the UN wants legitimacy, it can earn it - by resolving the situation in Liberia instead of hectoring us about the mess there. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-4 11:03:30 AM |
| #13 "It's a mistake to get the UN involved. I think we can train and staff up an Iraqi militia that will be more sympathetic to our goals in the region without Indians and Pakistanis fouling up Iraqi minds with their conspiracy theories about US motives. I really don't see why India, which is even less helpful than France, and Pakistan (for obvious reasons) should be allowed to deploy troops to Iraq. If they want in, they can do so under our terms, or not at all." To the extent we can staff up Iraqi forces quickly, that certainly lessens the need for international forces. Indeed that was probably the original Pentagon plan for Iraq - some combination of exile led forces, and Iraqi regular army units coming over. But apparently the State Department/CIA vetoed any large use of exiles ("INC - we dont need no stinking INC") and Iraqi army units tended to dissolve rather than defect. So we are where we are. Local iraqis we can raise now would be good - OTOH, the more we can stabilize the situation first, the safer it is for Iraqis to cooperate and join such militias. Pakistanis - it would be good to have muslim forces on the ground, for lots of reasons. Perv clearly puts his own interests above ours, but do you really think that Pak army units would help AQ in Iraq? Indian troops would likely help as well - you really think India army troops will run around spreading rumours about the US - I thought India had a disciplined army. They should go in on our terms - we need to make sure any UNSC resolution reflects our terms. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-4 10:48:42 AM |
| #12 "and perhaps others when they recognize that the press coverage of Iraq is the classic snow-job of ax-grinding and wheedling losers" The more the situation stabilizes, the less we need another UNSC res. Agreed. OTOH, the more the situation stabilizes, the less we need to offer to get another UNSC res. IE our negotiating leverage improves. This is not a reason not to negotiate, but to take a tougher line in negotiations. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-4 10:40:31 AM |
| #11 "The situation is stabilizing and it will continue to do so. Participation by those who need the obviously bogus imprimatur of the UN should be encouraged to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, posthaste. " Im not there and dont know. There is evidence the situation is stabilizing, I agree. Thats no guarantee. And even if it continues to stabilize it would be advantageous to have more international troops. Some countries - India, Pakistan, and now Argentina - want more UNSC cover before they go in - to the them the UNSC is not bogus - ergo it isnt bogus - if some will act with it, but not without it, then it represents real power. Why should we tell them to fuck off? Especially before knowing the political cost of a UNSC res. WHO - IIUC WHO does lots of things other than SARS. And would PRC not have covered up in th absence of WHO? did WHO make it worse? Just cause the UN, or any given agency, cant solve all the problems in the world, doesnt mean their not incrementally helpful. Is the cost benefit of membership worth it? Well the cost is easily calculated in dollars and cents - the benefit gets to intangibles in diplomacy, legitimacy and soft power. If you dont think diplomacy, legitimacy, and soft power have any valuable, either cause youre an isolationist who doesnt want the US to act in the world, or you believe that we can do everything we need to do with our own hard power alone, i suppose withdrawl from the UN might make sense. I happen to believe that we cannot afford not to act in the world, yet cannot afford to act alone. Therefore we need diplomacy, legitimacy, and soft power. Therefore the UN, while only one source of the above, is probably a good deal for the relatively small price - as long as treat it realistically. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-4 10:38:28 AM |
| #10 Every country participating now in Iraq, and perhaps others when they recognize that the press coverage of Iraq is the classic snow-job of ax-grinding and wheedling losers, is there sans any UN resolution. The situation is stabilizing and it will continue to do so. Participation by those who need the obviously bogus imprimatur of the UN should be encouraged to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, posthaste. We don't need no stinking resolution - to paraphrase the Treasure of the Sierra Madre line. LH - As for your analysis of the UN - you are far far too kind, in parts and in whole. I've stated my thoughts, before - as have you. This exercise goes nowhere, just as the one before the war. You have to admit that, no matter how vaunted the original principles or laden with good intentions it might have been in the past - that day is, indeed, in the past. Today it is merely a stage for posturing and prevarication and obfuscation and impeding those founding principles. You want to carve it up and break off the parts that demonstrably and obviously don't work (e.g. Un Commission on Human Rights chaired by Libya) - fine. But I don't want to pay for it. Any of it. Even those orgs which can work, such as WHO, are more and more frequently hijacked and prevented from doing so by political idiocy - can you say SARS & Taiwan? PRC - People's Republic my ass. And, in a terrific case of disingenuous duplicity, the PRC started the problem in the first place, then covered it up, and then exacerbated it with their games over Taiwan. They reduced the WHO to spectators - and then the WHO began to show signs of political partisanship idiocy dominating the medicine. An unnecessary debaucle. A few more episodes like SARS (which isn't gone - it will resurface again) will finish WHO off. Regards paying a large portion of the tab, many people feel the same way I do. More everyday. Soon, it will be most Americans. Then it can join the dodo. BTW, I'd like to invite Steve White to comment on SARS and WHO and China. As a Doc, he will have a unique and important take on what happened. If he sez I'm full of shit - I'll apologize and take it as a man. |
| Posted by: ·com 2003-8-4 10:23:01 AM |
| #9 OTOH we should realistically accept that its not enough for India, Pakistan, Germany, etc (or at any rate to get assistance from any of those under 1483 alone will require unacceptable bilateral concessions) A further UNSC res would therefore be highly desirable. It's a mistake to get the UN involved. I think we can train and staff up an Iraqi militia that will be more sympathetic to our goals in the region without Indians and Pakistanis fouling up Iraqi minds with their conspiracy theories about US motives. I really don't see why India, which is even less helpful than France, and Pakistan (for obvious reasons) should be allowed to deploy troops to Iraq. If they want in, they can do so under our terms, or not at all. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-4 10:15:38 AM |
| #8 LH makes some good points. One thing to keep in mind, too, that the article seems to gloss over is that the UK and US are also Security Council members and have the same veto ability France so gleefully wields. Working with the UN in good faith shows we're willing to find a common solution and compromise, but with the veto power nothing's getting rammed down our throats, so there's nothing to lose and a lot to gain. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-8-4 9:58:42 AM |
| #7 wrt to the humand right commish vote note well - France and Germany voted WITH us on that = weasels or not, they still share values and interests with us that China and even Russia do not. consultative contract - i mean a "consultant" tells an org that certain members of its board are abusing the org, and the board, led by those members, tosses the consultant? I mean thats hardly surprising, is it? And how do you keep dictatorial memebers of the UN GA off the commish? So essentially you have to write the commish off as useless, and try to abolish or minimize it. Doesnt mean you have to do the same to the rest of the UN. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-4 9:46:28 AM |
| #6 wrt Iraq: of coruse we should not undermine UNSC 1483, which is the basis for many aspects of our presence, and for polish-spanish-italian-ukrainian etc assistance. OTOH we should realistically accept that its not enough for India, Pakistan, Germany, etc (or at any rate to get assistance from any of those under 1483 alone will require unacceptable bilateral concessions) A further UNSC res would therefore be highly desirable. It is unlikely that any UNSC that is acceptable to us (IE that does NOT place Iraq entirely under the UN) would get French troops on the ground, but thats okay, we dont really need French troops. All we need is that France not veto, so Indian, Paki, Germans, etc can go. It is not clear at this point what France will insist on to not veto - that will have a big impact on whether we do reconcile with France any time soon. We need to balance in our approach to this - more troops would help alot, both to out overstretched army, to local legitimacy, and to our overall international position, where confirming that we are not hegemonists is to our benefit. On the other hand a UN role that is both strong enough and controlled by certain states on the UNSC such that it would endanger the fragile political path in Iraq would not be worth it. In that case we simply do without the UN, and get what help we can from the coalition of the willing. In this go round we should certainly get agreement from all permanent members before introducing a resolution - forcing a confrontation is less valuable to us now then in it was. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-4 9:41:28 AM |
| #5 Every British Foreign Office hack thinks of himself as Lawrence of Arabia, the man who will unite the Arabs. Like many Foreign Office proposals on the Mid East, this one's the product of an overactive fantasy life. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-4 9:38:26 AM |
| #4 a quick reminder on the UN in general. 1. Technical agencies - often very valuable, though we should still be wary of political biases. 2. Security Council - The agency FDR hoped would organize great power co-ordination, and prevent war. Cold war (IE soviet intransigence on the council) prevented that for 40 years. Since end of cold war the situation has been confused. At first some may have thought that in the absence of the USSR the UNSC could act as orignianlly envisioned. At this point it looks like the security council is a valuable piece of the world system, but is definitely NOT the be-all and end-all to international security issues FDR may have thought it would be. We must and will retain the ability to act when our own security demands it, regardless of the UNSC. On the other hand we should certainly not ignore the importance of the UNSC as a source of legitimacy, and our recourse to it as assurance to others that we are NOT on a course to hegemony. We should not undermine the council, but on the other hand we need to recognize the machiavellian manipulations there for what they are, and we need NOT refrain from using our oon hard power (IE bribes and threats) to gain the soft power that goes with UNSC approval. 3. All UN political agenicies other than the UNSC - The general assembly, commision on human rights, UNESCO (which has functioned as much as a political body as a technical one) Generally of very little worth - the one state one vote rule leads to more distorted outcomes than in the UNSC, where the veto and permanent membership at least recognizes the role of the great powers(even if the list of such is anachronistic) Nonetheless these bodies do carry some legitimacy in the eyes of many in the less developed world, and our departure from them would be unlikely to help the situation (and would force us off the UNSC, which is much more important) We should continue here to exert what influence we can (which is considerable) and minimize the influence of these bodies. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-4 9:33:45 AM |
| #3 If Dubya can dismiss the hysterical hysterics of Dear Leader, certainly he can withstand the perstering whining entreaties of multilateralist wannabees. I hope he simply smiles and tells them the facts: if you want to join us and contribute, then do so... if not, then join the other dregs as history passes you by. We have a real job to do - there's no room for impostors. |
| Posted by: ·com 2003-8-4 8:14:32 AM |
| #2 I swear the UN acts like in-laws on a cross country trip. "Can we come by and visit for a tiny bit?" and they stay for the duration, yet they complain if you offer them a motel room instead. Take Kofi and his family out for dinner and then offer them a stay at the Holiday Inn. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-8-4 7:41:04 AM |
| #1 If we take the hit vis-a-vis the UN, and I mean it's just on paper and not to the fundamental underpinnings, we can host 1 Indian and 1 Pakistani division and act as a facilitator for military-to-military exchanges like the ones between the US and the Soviets that helped as the end was near in Moscow. |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-8-4 1:46:19 AM |