| Submit your comments on this article | |
| International | |
| Kofi Natters On about Recognition of Governing Council | |
| 2003-08-06 | |
| Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday to recognize the Iraq’s new Governing Council as a step toward the formation of a true government. Annan also said the Security Council should establish a U.N. mission in Iraq and he chided the members for failing to say anything about the 25-member Governing Council after three of its members addressed a Security Council meeting on July 22. And if they don’t get with it, Kofi will strongly chide them next time. Spain circulated a draft statement after that meeting welcoming the Governing Council as an important first step toward the formation of an internationally recognized government in Iraq. But it was not adopted because of differing views among the 15 council nations. More than four months after the bitterly divided Security Council refused to back the war in Iraq, the U.S.-led occupation and the U.N.’s postwar role remain sensitive issues. Despite this, Iraq was still one of the key items on the agenda of Annan’s monthly lunch with the council. "We do need a decision to set up the (U.N.) mission. I think it is also important that they say something about the Iraqi Governing Council," Annan told The Associated Press. The secretary-general noted that the three Iraqis came to the United Nations to address the Security Council, which did not respond. "It doesn’t send a very good message," Annan said. It sent the message that M. deVillepin wanted sent. The U.S.-appointed Governing Council is representative of the key constituencies in Iraq - Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds - and was meant to be a transition to a more permanent government. The United States had pressed for a strong Security Council statement that would have welcomed establishment of the Governing Council. But indicative of the opposition was Monday’s Arab League announcement that its members will not recognize the U.S.-appointed body, and will wait instead until post-Saddam Hussein Iraq is led by
They don’t like what we’ve done so far? They’re going to like the next year even less. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 Kofi who??? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-8-6 4:45:11 PM |
| #10 LH - You have some good points, as always. In your particular objection - I'll lay off the fact that the UN is D.E.A.D. a bit. I insist that Kofi, et al, stop catering to the implacable. His choice of words, "as a step toward the formation of a true government" is just diplo-coverage for those who denied the Governing Council recognition. They deserve no coverage as badanov ably pointed out - their position is one of pure hypocrisy. Here's where you and I really differ, I think: It is my absolute belief that the UN isn't sacrosanct. If it works and it serves a purpose more profound that allowing any tin-pot twinkie who currently holds enough power to send a delegation, well and good - maybe it's worth the idiocy to get the benefit. If not, and I posit that it no longer holds water to claim it does, then the US should reassess participation and probably explore the avenue of an alternative. Just as the UN and the League were inventions of man, so can some more enlightened alternative be invented - incorporating lessons learned in these first 2 failures. The Crux of the Biscuit: The UN is just an idea - it does not embody goodness or morality or legitimacy or even good intentions - if the membership does not imbue it with those qualities by their deeds within its framework or under its auspicies. Period. Full stop. It is my concerted opinions that the idea has been hijacked and twisted and made into a mockery of its charter - which was seriously flawed since it fails to disallow membership to anything claiming to be a nation-state, as you point out in your first 2 sentences. Other than my beautiful Isle of Langerhans, that is - we're still oppressed and denied access to the UN Cafeteria and secretarial staff, both of which I am told are quite satisfying. The Peace of Westphalia might have been the model, as indicated here: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Westphalia for modern diplomacy - and may even have been a keystone concept in the development of the UN Charter. Fine. That does not negate the argument that the Charter has been suborned by self-serving interests into something that is actually repulsive to many Americans - and others not blinded by PC-think and the myth that it IS the magic int'l repository of morality and legitimacy - such as is claimed in almost every Beeb story in which it's mentioned. They believe repetition makes it true, even though it's a truly stupid claim - and demonstrably false. Your chunk regards the UN being an org of states, not people, comes from Pluto - I have no idea what you're on about and only find the thinnest connection to my comment. In the interest of peace, which I value and am, therefore, willing to fight for, and did when asked, I will shut up about the D.E.A.D. UN until it is the actual thread topic. I still want access to the cafeteria and secretaries, however, my Isles of Langerhans are the match of anyone else's. |
| Posted by: ·com 2003-8-6 2:32:25 PM |
| #9 Oh Hell...I miss read that. Thanks for the correction. Why did we go into Mozambique when Rwanda was a much needier place for intervention? I think with the current administration, acquesence to French objections will no longer be a consideration for taking the moral high ground on humanitarian issues. What is it with these French @#$!'s anyway? I guess they seem to like atrocities....or at least haven't found one in a zillion years that strikes a nerve. Perhaps they don't have a conscience. That was what I like about french women when I lived over there...they would do anything and show no remorse for it and don't be surprised if they won't make a committment...sorry I digress, but the Frogs are absolutely without any kind of moral compass or concern/conscience. Of course with Dominique, never trust anyone that sounds like Pepi LaPew. |
| Posted by: SOG475 2003-8-6 2:07:59 PM |
| #8 Maybe the administration is a bunch of morons but I like the UN even less. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-8-6 1:34:21 PM |
| #7 Old Patroit: or maybe an Islamic Republic. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-8-6 1:06:11 PM |
| #6 dot com The UN SG is not empowered to challenge the standing of a govt because its a dictatorship. The charter gives no such option. The charter follows international law, based on the treaty of westphalia in that regard. Now we are trying to stretch things now, since the treaty of westphalia is arguably obsolete in an age of transnational terror - arguably globalization is making the notion of sovereignty obsolete (but then that makes me sound like some kind of transnational progressive, doesnt it?) The UN is an organization of states, not of people. Would we really want an organization of people - what would that mean for our own soveriegnty as a state? Within that is the value of the UN limited - sure, we discussed that earlier. What i was discussing was NOT the overall value of the UN, but the particular actions of Kofi Annan in this instance. Like it or not the UN IS a forum where things of import to international politics happen, and it would be nice to be able to discuss them without each time addressing the legitimacy of the whole organization. Kinda the way it gets tiring when some lefty cant talk about the Bush admin without talking about Florida in 2000 (NOTE well - this does NOT mean i agreee with the GOP on Florida 2000 - just that its absurd to bring it into every converstation) SOG - I think youre missing the point - Kofi is pressing the UNSC to SUPPORT the council. WRT Rwanda - I seem to recall that Kofi did NOT obstruct intervention in Rwanda - it was France that did that, though to our discredit we (the US) was not eager to intervene. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-6 12:23:05 PM |
| #5 I think we should shoot him too. OR could someone find him culpable for the mass murders in Rwanda and the Sudan. He seems to have problems dealing with atrocities committed by African petty dictators and thugs. He definitely doesn't want to admit that sort of thing happens. His problem is that he can't find some way to blame them on the US. As for the governing council. His nattering is just petty. He seems adverse to recognizing that force sometimes works better than exchanging diplomatic papers and dinner at San Souce. |
| Posted by: SOG475 2003-8-6 11:33:06 AM |
| #4 I sincerely hope that France keeps up this stupid behavior, perhaps for another year, possibly two. At that time, its economy will be so bad, a slight sneeze from ANYWHERE will crash it, and there will be a NEW Republic - hopefully, a better one. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-8-6 10:43:28 AM |
| #3 "true government" Like Libya, chairing the UN Human Rights Commission and led by the Arab World's looniest tune? UN Member in good standing. Or Bob Mugabe leading Zimbabwe into the 17th (or is it the 7th?) Century? UN Member in good standing. Or Phrawnce's Dynamic Duo of Chirac & de Villepin, spécialistes diplomatiques, menteurs insincères et duplicious? UN Member in good standing. Or the Black Hats of Iran - terrorist sponsors, crushing oppostition while they rape their countrymen to enrich themseeves? UN Member in good standing. Or Hosni Mubarek, Dictator of Egypt's restless masses yearning to be told WTF to do? UN Member in good standing. Or ANY of the other Arab World's pseudo-countries run by Royalty of Dictators? UN Members in good standing. Or any of the other numerous thug-run jokes posing as Nation-states - all UN Members with full rights - when their citizens have none? UN Members in good standing. Pfeh. Kofi and his predecessors made themselves irrelevant through their lack of stewardship and ethics. Blame the UNSC, if you like, but it doesn't matter in the end, which has come. This dog don't hunt. Never did, actually. A dream unfulfilled. |
| Posted by: ·com 2003-8-6 10:40:18 AM |
| #2 again note that Kofi is opposing the De Villepin line. Opposing it with words only, but thats all Kofi has - this does NOT make France look good, and should have an impact on the debate. Thanks, Kofi. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-8-6 9:20:43 AM |
| #1 Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday to recognize the Iraq’s new Governing Council as a step toward the formation of a true government. True as in loyal to the UN? But indicative of the opposition was Monday’s Arab League announcement that its members will not recognize the U.S.-appointed body, and will wait instead until post-Saddam Hussein Iraq is led by a new strongman an elected government. Was this writer on crack? Arab governments down to the lowliest sniveling bureau are all unelected. So, if these Arab mobocracies see a democratically elected Iraq, they'll what? Sign off on it? How likely is Mubarak, or the Ayatollahs to endorsed a US-led democratization in Iraq? What kind of writing is this that fails to point out that Arab governments are amoungst the worse violators of human rights, and in fact hate the idea of letting Ahkmed as well as his wife vote, while pointing out the Arab League is looking down their noses at the US's efforts for a decent government for Iraq? |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-8-6 6:30:30 AM |