| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq | ||
| U.S. Offers to Share Iraq Role With U.N. | ||
| 2003-09-04 | ||
| Oh, bother. EFL. Shifting tactics and reaching out for help, the Bush administration offered on Wednesday to share with the United Nations the long-dominant U.S. role in Iraq’s postwar reconstruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell described the effort as ``essentially putting the Security Council in the game,’’ and European governments reacted favorably to the revised U.S. approach. A new U.N. resolution proposed by the United States recognizes ``that international support for restoration of conditions of stability and security is essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq.’’ That’s always been true. France, which led opposition to the war on Iraq, said the new resolution should ensure that political power will be transferred quickly to an internationally recognized Iraqi government to help restore peace. ``The question is how to win the peace — and how to have the situation stabilized,’’ France’s U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said in New York. ``So we will see the resolution with this in mind.’’ Well for openers, it has to keep TotalFinaElf out of Iraq! Under the resolution, American commanders would remain in charge of peacekeeping operations in Iraq, but there, too, ``we are asking the international community to join us even more than they have in the past,’’ Powell said. In turning to the United Nations, the administration was modifying its strategy for postwar Iraq. But Powell said a U.N. resolution ``is all part of the president’s strategy of making sure that this is an international operation.’’ The resolution may be ready for submission to the Security Council next week, he said as he telephoned foreign ministers. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte circulated a draft to other U.N. ambassadors in New York, and Powell said initial reactions were positive. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on his way to the Mideast, said countries that donate troops and money in Iraq would have a voice in both civil and military operations there. ``To the extent countries step up with troops and support and money, they have a seat at the table,’’ Rumsfeld said. ``They have the opportunity to work with us and the Iraqis.’’ Diplospeak for "ante up"! The grand plan becomes clear: if the Euros don’t contribute, they’ll no longer have a basis to complain. The resolution envisions a substantial infusion of international aid to defray costs now largely borne by U.S. taxpayers. At the same time, the administration is preparing a new budget request for $60 billion to $70 billion for reconstruction and the military operation of Iraq — nearly double what Congress was expecting, The Washington Post reports. Only the dimwitted in Congress (okay, that’s a solid majority) thought this was going to be done on the cheap. In Brussels, the United States and other donors pushed ahead with plans to channel billions of dollars in reconstruction aid to Iraq through an international fund independent of the U.S.-led administration in Baghdad.
- Transform the U.S.-led coalition force into a U.N.-authorized multinational one under a unified command to help maintain ``security and stability in Iraq’’ and urge the 191 U.N.-member states to contribute troops.The administration has been under pressure from European and other governments, as well as from members of Congress, to share responsibility on Iraq. The pressure has increased as U.S. casualties have mounted Yeah, sure, whatever, are you in or are you out? Chips go to the middle of the table. The British Foreign Office said Britain had always seen the United Nations as playing a vital role in Iraq. On Capitol Hill, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, ``We should be willing to agree to a reasonable sharing of decision-making with respect to the physical and political reconstruction of Iraq.’’ By contrast, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was skeptical of ``this notion on the part of some of my colleagues that all we need to do is to get greater international support, including the U.N.’’
Just what we need, Pak and Indian troops side-by-side. Criminy, next thing ya know the ISI will be asked to provide intel support. | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #10 "Hi Kofi--this here is Colin." "Ya there?" "I just got off the phone with |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 12:07:31 AM |
| #9 Michael, thanks for that. I didn't see the interview but wish I had. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-9-4 8:24:12 PM |
| #8 Saw Richard Holbrooke on Charlie Rose last night. Said all we are asking for is UN approval to set up an East Timor, Bosnia, even Korea-like arrangement where C and C is in the hands of one power (US) and UN helps out, but stays out of the way. We would still be calling the shots (no pun intended). What he said jibes with what I read here, Steve. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-9-4 5:09:20 PM |
| #7 "I haven't figured out this move either" according to this AM's wapo it went like this. Powell and the Brits have wanted this for a while, but as long as Rummy had the generals behind him, they couldnt move. After the UN bombing, State floated the idea in public - you may recall something from Armitage - then the generals (definitely Peter Pace Vice chair of JCS) and possibly Abuzaid (CINC Centcom) contacted Powell directly. Myers (chair JCS - top uniformed guy in the US military) signed on, and Powell went to the White House, citing backing from all the generals. Condi - noting failure to get more troops (even Turks) without a UN res, an imminent problem with the rotation schedule, mounting political presssure, and the situation on the ground, said yes. An unnamed senior defense source said Feith (Undersec Def for Policy and a leading neocon) was opposed, but Feith told WaPo he'd supported the idea for weeks. Situation Normal, all f**ked up. So the main question now is how far the horsetrading goes. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-9-4 1:22:00 PM |
| #6 Facing the threat and reality of islamist terror should be a shared responsibility as no one country is exempt. Ask Rhiyad. Ask the UN. We all have to step up to the table. And the flypaper has been a pretty focusing strategy. "They're all there boys! Go get em!" And the sooner we get the US out of Iraq, the sooner we can suceesfully deal with Iran, Syria, Korea.... |
| Posted by: john 2003-9-4 11:30:28 AM |
| #5 No worries, France and Germany have already rejected it. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-9-4 11:19:35 AM |
| #4 I haven't figured out this move either. Politics to appease the U.S. voters who wanted U.N. involvement? Soften the budget blow? Free troops to rest up for the next post-election offensive? Put another nail in the U.N. coffin? All of the above? |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-9-4 11:13:25 AM |
| #3 Why ? Why now ? Because France understands after four months that the U.S. will never cede authority to the U.N. The dream that Iraq will despise the U.S. forever and force them out is fading. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-4 11:08:46 AM |
| #2 Is this Bush 2's equivalent to Bush 1's breaking his 'no new taxes' promise? Just last week Powell admitted the bankruptcy of his 'Roadmap to Peace' by calling on Arafat to stop the violence, when Arafat is behind the violence. Now Powell is giving up Iraq after the US liberated it and handing a massive victory to Bush's enemies, foreign and domestic. This is nuts. Why are they doing it? |
| Posted by: Jabba the Nutt 2003-9-4 8:52:21 AM |
| #1 $60-70 Bill?? No prob, dump viagra care for boomers. Ask not what your country can do for you..... More than enough left over to pay down the deficit and upgrade the electrical grid. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-4 1:21:37 AM |