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
International-UN-NGOs
U.N. Work in Iraq Going Well, Annan Says
2004-02-10
The work of a U.N. team now in Iraq to study whether elections can be held before the U.S.-led coalition hands over power to Iraqis "is going extremely well," Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Monday.
They’re doomed. Doomed!
The team arrived in Baghdad on Saturday, and Annan said they have met with the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi Governing Council, and were now holding separate meetings with individual council members. "They are reaching out and are open to talk to as many groups as possible," he said. "So far so good. The atmosphere has been good. They’ve been well-received and there’s been very good and frank discussions," Annan said. "I think the work of the team is going extremely well."
It’d be nice if the UN could get one thing right in all this.
The current U.S. plan is to choose legislators in regional caucuses, a move opposed by the country’s most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, who wants direct elections. During the team’s talks with the council on Sunday, Sunni Muslim Arabs echoed the U.S. view that early elections were not practical because of the need for extensive preparations to ensure a fair and credible ballot.
And because they’d lose their shirts, and know it.
Most of the Shiite members favored an early vote, arguing that sufficient data was available to guarantee an acceptable election.
"Why yes, we’d be happy to get 70% of the votes and let our Kurd buddies have another 20%."
The secretary-general said the team, led by his personal adviser Lakhdar Brahimi, is operating on the assumption that the U.S.-led coalition will transfer power by June 30, as called for in its Nov. 15 agreement with the Iraqi Governing Council. But he reiterated that "if the parties were to agree to other arrangements I think it would be difficult to reject it. We will have to consider it."
Just opened a door that we might not want open.
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte stressed, however, the importance of sticking to the June 30 hand over. "We are very committed to the June 30 deadline," he said. "This is a date of the utmost importance to us."
"So quit trying to jiggle our elbow!"
Annan said he expects the team to remain in Iraq "for as long as they can stand it about a week or so." "Obviously, they will have to run away come to New York to catch up on some good meals finalize their report and enjoy a fine port give their conclusions to me to ignore study, and then I will sit on it convey my disrespect conclusions to the people I hate most in Iraq CPA and the people second on my list Iraqi Governing Council," he said. Annan said he needs to give the report to the Governing Council later this month "to factor the decision into their end of February deadline for completion of the basic law" which the Iraqis are drafting to govern the transition. Asked whether the United States will abide by the U.N. findings, Negroponte said, "Certainly these views are going to be weighed with the utmost seriousness."
"But they ain't in charge. They'll never be in charge! They'd lose money running an ice cream stand in Hell!"
Annan said he chose Brahimi - a veteran Algerian diplomat - to head the mission because it "was technical but also intensely political and highly charged" and he wanted someone with extensive diplomatic experience.
And who knows the electoral process better than an Algerian?
Negroponte said the United States had made clear it would welcome Brahimi’s involvement, but added that the decision to send Brahimi was the secretary-general’s, not Washington’s.
"We suspect he’s ucky."
Posted by:Steve White

#7  U.N. Work in Iraq Going Well, Annan Says

At least until UN personnel are targeted again.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-2-10 11:43:32 AM  

#6  The DNC is a group of fundraisers, essentially, not a foreign policy organization. I doubt many of them even know clearly who is who in Iraq - unlike State and CIA, who know quite well. Among the Dems Joe would have been more forceful on this than Bush is - but my party doesnt have enough good people to nominate a Joe. Edwards has an advisor out of the Hoover Institute named Larry Diamond, who "gets it" - but theres no guarantee what role he would have in an Edwards admin - which is in any case unlikely. Im not clear who Kerrys advisors are - i am troubled indeed by rhetoric from him indicating deference to the French.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2004-2-10 11:13:35 AM  

#5  They have good reason to distrust us, and to wonder if we arent about to subject them to Sunnis and ex-Baathists again. Indeed, my sense is that there are some folks at Foggy Bottom and Langley who would gladly do so.

You left out the DNC.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-2-10 9:08:14 AM  

#4  Brahimi was the UN rep in Afghanistan, where he did a very good job, praised by the Bush admin. The Bush admin specifically asked that he be the one to go to Baghdad - hes old, and didnt want to go - WE pushed for it.

And why shouldnt the UN be involved - they do have experience organizating elections and reconstructing states. Their success is mixed, to be sure, but this is not an easy task - i wouldnt expect complete success everywhere. The principle reason for opposing UN control was and IS the fear that UN control would come to be manipulated by the UNSC - specifically France and Russia - as long as the UNSC is kept to specific tasks, and we have a hand in the negotiations, and its clear that either elections or caucuses are acceptable to the US and dont advance an anti-US agenda, i see no problem with the UN offering their "good offices"
Am i surprised that the Shia would see the UN as offering better "good offices" than the US? Well yeah, but then its quite possible that they are better than some here at distinguishing between a Brahimi and the manipulators on the UNSC. Its also a fact that Sistani is trying to assuage the minority within the Shia who lean toward al Sadr - and that he himself has weighed the costs and benefits, and sees the UN as useful in gaining cred with the minority that trusts the US less than the UN, and while leaving the US ultimately in charge.

Also dont forget - while we here go on and on about how the UN protected Saddam - the Shia remember 1991 - when they rose up, and almost had Saddam out, if only we would have stopped his helicopters from flying, but we betrayed them, preferring stability and the status quo. They have good reason to distrust us, and to wonder if we arent about to subject them to Sunnis and ex-Baathists again. Indeed, my sense is that there are some folks at Foggy Bottom and Langley who would gladly do so.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2004-2-10 9:02:51 AM  

#3  LOL Garrison... Perhaps if Kerry wins Dr. Dean will be sent to the UN.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-2-10 7:50:26 AM  

#2  Knowing Algeria like I do, I wonder what Brahimi's price tag is? How will we make the deposit and will we be outbid by France and Germany in this "recommendation" market.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2004-2-10 6:47:04 AM  

#1  As the USA which has a strong democratic tradition believes it detrimental to hold direct elections anytime soon, one can be absolutely certain Kofi will declare, "Direct elections could have and should have been held yesterday. Let's get this show on the road. There will be direct elections in 72 hours. And may our good friends in Iraq's only organized political party -- Saddam's Arab Ba'athist Socialist Party -- achieve a great victory for the UN and Jacque Chiraq. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE--AAAAAAAAAAH!"
Posted by: Garrison   2004-2-10 6:29:58 AM  

00:00