| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| Bush, Blair Discuss Postwar Iraq Plans |
| 2003-04-08 |
| Followup to yesterday's posts. Looking beyond the war, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are trying to bridge differences over how to rebuild and govern Iraq, while also seeking to boost peace talks in Northern Ireland. In their third meeting in three weeks, Bush and Blair were meeting at Hillsborough Castle outside Belfast to discuss Iraq reconstruction and peace efforts in the Mideast and Northern Ireland. Most of their focus Tuesday was on Iraq. The two leaders were showcasing military progress there and looking ahead to the postwar period, while seeking to minimize splits on who should govern and rebuild the country. ``The hostilities phase is coming to a conclusion,'' said Secretary of State Colin Powell, accompanying Bush aboard Air Force One to this British province with its own decades-long history of violence. ``It's time for all of us to think about the post-hostility phase, how we create a representative government consisting of all elements of Iraqi society.'' A key component of the talks Tuesday was to be on U.N. resolutions that would define what role the international body would play in reconstruction and governing. ``There is enough work for everyone to have a role,'' Powell said, even as aides conceded privately that Blair seems to want a more influential U.N. role than Bush favors. Sounds like Powell opened the door. Bush has said he supports a U.N. role and the creation of an interim governing authority for Iraq. But he has not provided key details, such as the exact nature of the U.N.'s role and the makeup of the authority. Powell said the United Nations can provide humanitarian aid and add legitimacy to the interim authority, but he did not offer a role for the international body beyond that. A Blair spokesman, stressing agreement with the United States, told reporters the United Nations has never expressed a desire to run Iraq. Somebody send for Kofi. Irish Prime Minister Bernie Ahern, invited for talks Tuesday on Northern Ireland, said he would tell Bush the United Nations should have a primary role in Iraq's reconstruction. Bush added a complex set of issues by heeding Blair's call to meet in Northern Ireland and to back Blair's peace blueprint, due out later this week. Blair has racked up IOUs from Bush by backing the president on Iraq in the face of fierce opposition at home. We can certainly back Tony on the Northern Ireland plan. Blair hopes presidential backing will strengthen his hand when he publishes his government's new Northern Ireland plans by Thursday, the fifth anniversary of the so-called Good Friday accords. The pact sought to end three decades of sectarian conflict in the British territory. The visit demonstrates Bush's support for Blair's approach, administration officials said. ``This is a very significant step in the life of Northern Ireland,'' Powell said. The Iraq war undercut support for Bush among some citizens in Belfast. In the Bogside district, a 50-foot-high wall that for more than three decades has read ``You are now entering Free Derry'' was painted solid black in a gesture of mourning for Iraqis killed in the war. The area's veteran civil rights activist, Eamonn McCann, said most Derry Roman Catholics considered Bush a hypocrite for telling the Irish Republican Army that violence doesn't pay. ``Bush is saying to political leaders here: Give up the gun, don't use violence to pursue political ends, follow the rule of law. He is demanding that they do that even as he prosecutes the war in Iraq,'' McCann said. ``I doubt if I've ever encountered anything as grotesquely hypocritical as the exercise in Hillsborough.'' Go ask Gerry Adams. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 Liberalhawk: The UN is DEAD. Period. Full stop. |
| Posted by: PD 2003-04-08 23:52:51 |
| #15 The US should propose (1) that the administration of post-war Iraq be handed over to the UNSC and (2) the US will veto any measures taken by that body to make it so. |
| Posted by: Tresho 2003-04-08 23:23:28 |
| #14 Liberalhawk! I blush! |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-04-08 19:51:23 |
| #13 OK people - I'll buy your approach but only if Hans and El-Baradei have to make periodic (say, every 3-4 months) reports with discussion and unanimous approval before they further define steps to review the current status, discuss, and yadda yadda ....ad infinitum |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-04-08 18:33:02 |
| #12 Liberalhawk, that deadline, it is, well, too specific. I mean, we hafta wait for Hans Blix's report on, um, something. How's about October 1, 2020? ;) |
| Posted by: Former Russian Major 2003-04-08 15:36:27 |
| #11 Heres what we should propose at the UNSC "UNSC Res 14XX: The UNSC, bearing in mind yada yada Resolves that : The Secretary General shall appoint a commision to study all aspects of the issue of Iraqi governance, to consult with all interested parties. The commision shall report back to the UNSC no later than October 1, 2003, at which point the UNSC shall review the report and take further steps as appropriate. The UNSC determines to remain seized of the matter." |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-08 13:39:11 |
| #10 Ptah: This from Den Beste: "Unlike the last few rounds of diplomatic wrangling, time is no longer on the weasels' side. British and American administrators are beginning that process now." Great minds think alike :) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-08 13:27:46 |
| #9 I think you guys are right on most points here but this action was done under UN1441, which they refused to back up when they had the chance(s). I personally enjoy listening to their UN whining, and, Liberalhawk, you are correct about no long-term obligations imposed on the new Iraqi gov't, but we should and will influence the iraqi frame of mind tremendously. I think we need to publish the lists of illegally-transferred goods from these bastards at each UNSC meeting they want to have to discuss terms of rebuilding. It won't shame the French, they have no honor to shame, but it might shut some of the others up a bit. Tell Chirac to send a carrier for rebuilding support...it'll never get out of the Med |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-04-08 12:22:43 |
| #8 Saw Richard Holbrooke on Charlie Rose last night. He is brilliant and I hope Bush can find him a job re Iraq. He said TWICE that the French had "jerked us around" at the UN; that we need to tell the Germans, French, and Russians basically that the train is leaving the station, but that the best they can hope to do is be porters and not engineers (my words, but that was the spirit). ALSO, he said the pissing war over which US govt/UN/EU entity would get the glory in reconstructing Iraq was "garbage". He said all of this for the forseeable future should be handled by the military since it has the people and resources to get the job done. He said it was "tasteless" for Paris, London, Brussels, and DC to be fighting when PEOPLE need food and water now. To sum up, it is the Coalition of the Willing that is in the driver's seat and prissy Eurocrats can give us money and food, but not their opinions. WOW. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-04-08 10:48:27 |
| #7 Heh, heh. We really don't want the UNSC to "rush things", now do we? |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-04-08 10:44:56 |
| #6 One more thing--Bush and Blair have demonstrated quite clearly (is going to war a strong enough statement?) that they will do things "unilaterally" if the UN hinders or blocks our best interests. Going back to the UN doesn't mean we will be slaves to the UN process. |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-04-08 10:13:57 |
| #5 Frank - Don't forget, we've got that Security Council Veto power, too, as do our good friends the Brits. Nothing is going to get forced on us without our own consent, and we're not letting France push anything through. Yes, unfortunately, we do have to cooperate with the French to get a resolution, but they have to cooperate with us as well. |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-04-08 10:10:29 |
| #4 Frank - uh once again to help Tony, Aznar, et al, and to strengthen our position in the region etc. You raise 2 objections - The UNSC interfering with the nation building and the Weasels muscling in on contracts. Both legitimate concerns. Ideally we would like a UNSC res. that "authorizes" us without giving the UN ANY say in nation-building, political or economic. How close we can come to that will depend on the course of negotiations, and is what Dubya and Tony have presumably been discussing. With regard to contracts - keep in mind that any contracts will be short term only IIUC - no occupation admin, even UN can bind the future Iraqi govt. With regard to political, the more that we can establish on the ground now (Chalabi in Nassariyah, some friendly Sheik the Brits have found in Basra, etc) the less room there will be for the UN or anyone else to impose their will later. That may be one reason we're trying so hard to win the battle of baghdad quickly - so we can create facts on the ground while the UN process grinds on. Remember in the pre-war the slow UN process hurt us - now it can help us Colin: We want the UN liasion to report to Jay Garner Du Villepin: That is unacceptable!!! Colin: Ok, we'll draw up a new proposal that attempts to meet your objections. Du Villepin: And when can we see it? Colin: Well theres only one guy I trust to write it, and he's going on a well-deserved vacation. Oh, and when he comes back hes supposed to work on a trade agreement with Micronesia. How about three months? Sorry if we the Iraqi Interim authority has already taken power by then. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-08 09:43:52 |
| #3 The UNSC? are you insane? Why would we need or want to play ball with those perfidious aholes? So Cameroon or Chile can tell us how to put together a nation? F*&k the French Germans and Russians. East european countries need the work, and would appreciate the economic assistance. The WHO, UNICEF, et al have a place in humanitarian services, but there will be no power sharing with those who stab us in the back...bastards! Got me so pissed off, now I don't need this coffee! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-04-08 09:02:45 |
| #2 Even Kofi has said theres not going to be a Kosovo style UN admin in Iraq. Kosovo was unique - in Iraq there is the option of returning power to the Iraqi people - in Kosovo a simple handover to the Kosovo people would have meant Kosovo independence from Serbia, which allies insisted was not what they had gone to war for. Therefore a long term occupation was needed and UN was most appropriate to do it. In Iraq we are presumably looking at something less than a year, maybe only 6 months depending on how it goes. The question is therefore more a matter of going to UN for a UNSC res. "authorizing" coalition administration. The French and Russians are likely to insist on some degree of UN oversight and participation in return. The question will be how hard we bargain, and - yes, set again - whether we are willing to go unilateral if they threaten to veto a reasonable compromise. Bush and Blair are hammering out negotiating strategy, and may yet again play "good cop - bad cop". For the sake of the UN and multilateralism, I hope it works better this time - IE I hope the French and Russians are more reasonable and place the interests of the UN ahead of their narrow agendas. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-08 08:37:49 |
| #1 Arrgh, forgot to put my name in the line. Can you fix this Fred? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-04-08 01:35:25 |