You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Diplomats at U.N. Discuss Iraq Proposal
2003-09-06
Opponents and supporters of a U.S.-proposed resolution to get more troops and money into Iraq grappled with the key divisive issues Friday - how to quickly restore Iraq’s sovereignty and how large the U.N.’s role should be in rebuilding the country. The United States welcomed the ``good discussion’’ at the first informal meeting of the 15 Security Council members. In contrast to the acrimonious debate in the council before the war, virtually all council ambassadors said the session was much more open to give-and-take.
Wonder who was doing which?
France and Germany, which opposed the war, are conditioning their approval of the resolution on a more rapid transition of power from Iraq’s U.S.-picked Governing Council to a new government elected by Iraqis. But both said they believed a compromise was possible - and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Friday he was ``optimistic’’ one could be reached.
Jack is always optimistic.
``There’s a lot of work to do still,’’ said Germany’s U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger. ``But this meeting ... was in a very constructive mood, and I think there was no confrontation whatsoever. You could feel that every member of the council wanted to make a contribution that would add to the significance, and to the effectiveness of that resolution.’’
I’m sure the Guyanan delegation contributed significantly.
``I think things are moving forward relatively well,’’ said Chile’s U.N. Ambassador Heraldo Munoz. ``That’s why I’m moderately optimistic that we’ll get an agreement.’’ U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he suggested that foreign ministers of the five veto-wielding council nations meet with him ``to explore a common ground and the way forward.’’ He expressed hope in a CNN interview that such a meeting ``will take place in the not too distant future.’’
Ah no, that would be 3 ganging up on 2.
Britain, which holds the Security Council presidency this month, said all members agreed to work for a united approach that would encourage the restoration of Iraq’s independence and help create ``a successful Iraq in political, economic and security terms.’’ Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov gave cautious approval to the resolution Friday, but reaffirmed Russia’s push for a quick restoration of Iraq’s sovereignty, adding that the draft will need ``serious work’’ to win approval.
Thus trying to have it both ways -- "we support it but it won’t pass without work".
After Friday’s meeting, Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov stressed that sovereignty must be restored ``within a very specific timeframe, and that this must be done in a way which involves the Iraqis, which involves the United Nations, and which is endorsed by the Security Council.’’
Timeframe: when they’re ready.
The United States was clearly taking a softer stance than it has on previous Iraq-related issues that have come before the council. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte stressed the resolution was only ``a working draft’’ and his boss in Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell, offered to ``adjust and adapt’’ the text. But in a swipe at France and Germany, he told reporters, ``If you would like to see something different, make a proposal in addition to an editorial comment.’’
"Just so we know what we’re shooting at towards."
Negroponte said the resolution was a way forward because it focused on ``the rapid restoration of full sovereignty to Iraq.’’ However, the draft resolution doesn’t relinquish U.S. political and military control of Iraq, and many council nations are demanding a much stronger U.N. role. The U.S. draft invites the Iraqi Governing Council to work with the United Nations and U.S. officials to produce a timetable for drafting a new constitution and holding democratic elections. It calls for the U.S.-led military force in Iraq to be transformed into a multinational force under a unified command. U.S. officials insist it must be led by an American general. France would like to see the United Nations replace the United States as Iraq’s interim administrator, as would Mexico. Syria and Germany want a U.N.-led force, council diplomats said. France would also like some responsibilities now in the hands of the U.S.-led coalition to be transferred to the Governing Council immediately, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity. It is expected to submit amendments next week.
Like the oil contracts, for example.
The U.S. draft leaves the key decision on a timetable for elections in the hands of the Governing Council, which took months just to form a Cabinet. Chile’s Munoz said he proposed that the council ask Annan to consult and agree with the Governing Council on a concrete timetable, shifting the primary responsibility. While many countries want a stronger U.N. role, Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry conceded there is ``a contradiction’’ at the moment because the United Nations has drastically reduced its international staff in Iraq following the Aug. 19 bombing of U.N. headquarters. U.N. Undersecretary-General Kieran Prendergast briefed the council on the dangers U.N. staff face in Iraq and the need for improved security. Jones Parry said the council ``underlined that we would do everything possible to deliver proper security.’’
"But you’ll have to let us instead of showing your usual disdain for common sense."
Posted by:Steve White

#10  I hope Bush is planning on covering David Kay's results. Weren't they due to be released in September?
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-9-6 8:12:14 PM  

#9  Charles, the UN building in Baghdad IS a pile of rubble.

That's not the building he was talking about. As I read it, he was referring to the UN building in New York City.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2003-9-6 4:33:43 PM  

#8  the UN building in Baghdad IS a pile of rubble. Kofi had already blamed the US for the place getting blowed up real good in spite of the fact that the army offered to provide security and the UN refused.

To Whom it May Concern,

We deeply regret the loss of your truck and driver in front of our building in Baghdad.

We shall endeavor to address our parking policy accordingly.

--K. A.
Sec Gen, UN
Posted by: eLarson   2003-9-6 3:31:53 PM  

#7  Tell them we'll let them smoke in their offices. That'll get them on board. Like throwing a five spot at a two dollar whore.
Posted by: tu3031   2003-9-6 2:26:29 PM  

#6  ... moronic son sought government employment.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-9-6 1:09:33 PM  

#5   That's been common practice in a lot of countries....send your kids who ain't too brite but come from rich/powerful families to the UN for a job where they really can't hurt anybody else except maybe some foreigners. Mummy & Daddy don't have to deal with the family mulligan, and you get to keep that political/economic support.)

How was it done in old England -- first son got the land and money, second son went became an army officer, third son became a vicar ...
Posted by: Steve White   2003-9-6 11:37:49 AM  

#4  Charles, the UN building in Baghdad IS a pile of rubble. Kofi had already blamed the US for the place getting blowed up real good in spite of the fact that the army offered to provide security and the UN refused. They depended on their old buddies the ex-Baathists to do a good job of protecting their dumb asses (Yup, dumb asses. That's been common practice in a lot of countries....send your kids who ain't too brite but come from rich/powerful families to the UN for a job where they really can't hurt anybody else except maybe some foreigners. Mummy & Daddy don't have to deal with the family mulligan, and you get to keep that political/economic support.)
We damned Americans are just upsetting the established order too much. Heaven forbid some of these little people get to live like humans instead of slaves. Why, if the Iraqis started holding their betters accountable.....then, maybe they would do the same in Syria. Or France. Can't have that, now, can we?
Posted by: Baba Yaga   2003-9-6 9:58:05 AM  

#3  We don't need anyone else. The UN is out of date and powerless.

We've discussed this already, time and again.

However, the UN fails to realize one thing: There HQ and embassies are all in New York City.

If only the terrorists had realized they could have destroyed 'western ideas ' in one fatal swoop.

Then the UN building would be rubble, and the world would get off it's dead ass and do something!
Posted by: Charles   2003-9-6 3:19:44 AM  

#2  Newt Gingrich had the best solution for dealing with this so far: Screw the UN, tell the people on TV it's going to cost more than it's going to cost and tell them exactly what's going on. Tell them it's going to be a tough road and such is life after 9-11. We can deal with bastards like Saddam head on or we can wait for them to deal with us. Period. End of story. He says we don't even need anyone else. I don't why but I believe him.
Posted by: g wiz   2003-9-6 2:57:14 AM  

#1  Yep. This is the ticket. But we should go all the way. We've been culturally insensitive - and we deserve all of the hatred and animus of the world. We asked for it - they had no choice. It's time to set things right, once and for all.
1) We should let the French write the resolution - they'll act in their national interest and, being our good allies with all those overlapping interests, we'll be as pleased as punch with what they produce. We've failed to recognize them and the valuable guidance they've offered over the years. It's time we sat down and learned the art of diplomacy.

2) This will please the Germans immensely, so things will immediately improve with them, as well. We should apologize for entering WWII. They hadn't done anything to us, after all.

3) Kofi will probably forgive us - and we can restore that important link by offering our help wherever his little heart desires in Africa.

And, while that's being "debated" and the champagne flows at the UN, we should pack everything and everyone up in Iraq and haul it all back to America. It was a mistake. We're very very sorry.

1) The Shia are reasonable folks - they'll pacify the South and get all the help they need from the moderate Iranians. The Holy Mullahs will be glad to step in and correct the terrible situation in Iraq.

2) Our good fiends and allies, the Turks, will help maintain order in the North. We can trust them to "solve" those messy Kurdish issues.

3) We can help our pal Tony, too, cuz the limeys can go home too. If the Brits toss him out, we will offer permanent residence and pensions for him and his entire Govt in the US - Chevy Chase is nice. Or we could give them back Boston and New York so they can settle in comfortably. The Rev War was a mistake - their Geo3 was a jolly good fellow.

4) The important Arab tribal culture should not be denigrated as backward or brutal. Far from it - it is the beacon of man's future, not it's past. We'll trust the Sunnis to handle the central zone. The Sheikhs will recognize that acting for the greater good of Iraq overrides local loyalties and bakshish.

When these wheels start turning, we can mend fences with the Saudis, who've never ever done anything whatsoever to harm us. We should bring back a token US military force - and then throw ourselves out so their public will know the Royals and Clerics are our betters.

The Egyptians and our good friend Mubarek, we should give them $4B per year, instead of the measly $2B. They deserve it! Just cuz.

We should issue an apology to Perv and Pakiland - and immediately set up a madrassah fund to relieve the strain on our Saudi brothers. We'll empty Gitmo - and compensate each person kept there handsomely.

A blanket apology should be offered to the surviving Taliban - and a reparations fund set up immediately to right the terrible wrongs they've suffered at our hands. We can offer to execute some Afghan women who've shed the burqa to show how serious we are.

The Iranians. What can I say? How can I mitigate the damage we caused them by broadcasting messages encouraging their public to revolt? I say we give the mullahs the Toyota dealerships owned by all registered Repooblicans in compensation. This will give them a cash flow and base of operations in the US. They can spread the Religion of Peace. We will all sit at their feet and learn the wisdom and their holy ways.

Syria - I doubt that Baby Doc can forgive us, but we'll get that pipeline back online immediately!

Dear Leader - you were right. We've been threatening you and making peace and prosperity impossible. You have every right to demand oil and food and the right to sell nuke and missile tech to anyone you please. We'll give you Hollywood in compensation for our failure to see your shining example.

And then we'll get serious about this road map stuff. Arafat will be made Permanent Presidential Foreign Advisor for Middle Eastern Affairs. We will guarantee them $4B per year, just like Egypt. We will immediately send war material to the militant groups - along with some damned fine cash bonuses to get the ball rolling, again. Our full arms inventory will be made available to them.

The we'll declare war on Israel. What isn't our fault must be theirs. Nuke the place - when the wind is right.

This set of gestures should open doors and make us popular throught the world. Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, and Johnny Depp will be appointed to cabinet positions. Then Geo43 will resign in disgrace and his entire cabinet will be shot.
That oughtta do it.
Posted by: .com   2003-9-6 1:33:17 AM  

00:00