Reply
Tue 6 Jan, 2004 02:26 pm
Stop failing the Iraqis[/u]
By:Dr Edwin J. Feulner
January 5, 2004
"You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem," goes a popular military axiom. That's especially true in Iraq, where for years the United Nations refused to help solve problems. Because of that, it ended up making the situation there much worse.
For example, when Saddam Hussein ignored U.N. disarmament resolutions in the late 1990s, the world body refused to enforce its own orders. First it opened talks with the dictator. When those predictably failed, the U.N. ended up pulling its weapons inspectors out entirely. Saddam would still be in power today, tyrannizing his own people and posing a threat to the rest of the world, if the United States hadn't assembled a coalition to depose him.
The fall of Saddam gave the U.N. another chance to join the right side of history. But even in today's post-Saddam era, it's choosing to remain irrelevant in Iraq?-which means it remains a big part of the problem there.
Iraq's acting foreign minister recently traveled to U.N. headquarters to make this very point. Hoshyar Zubari had harsh words for the Security Council. "The U.N. as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years," he said. "The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."
Zubari wants the U.N. to pitch in by providing more humanitarian aid, and by advancing the electoral and political process. But the best thing would be to get its members?-especially those on the vaunted Security Council?-to forgive Iraq's Saddam-era debt.
During his decades in power, Saddam ran up more than $120 billion in debt to foreign governments and private lenders. Russia holds about $4 billion of that, while France holds $2 billion. In an interesting coincidence, both nations opposed the coalition's efforts to oust Saddam last spring.
And keep in mind where more than half the money Saddam borrowed went. Not toward building a better country?-that's what Iraqis are struggling to do today. No, it was invested in Saddam's military and his gilded palaces.
"The past is the past," intoned France's ambassador after Zubari asked for U.N. support. "We should not look at the past but look forward." But how can Iraq possibly build a future with billions of dollars in debt hanging over it? If its new democratic government inherits a crushing debt, it's likely to fail. And in Iraq, the failure of democracy could mean a return to dictatorial rule, and a government friendly to terrorists.
"Old Europe" has done virtually nothing to help Iraq, politically or financially. But it still expects to profit from the rebuilding effort. Its representatives howled when the Pentagon announced that only countries which took part in the coalition to oust Saddam could win contracts under an American-financed $18 billion Iraq rebuilding effort.
"This is a gratuitous and extremely unhelpful decision," huffed European Union commissioner Chris Patten. What we need, he said, is "for the international community to work together for stability and reconstruction in Iraq."
That is indeed what we need. And the logical place for that cooperation to start would be at the U.N. As Zubari told the Security Council, today Iraq enjoys "the most representative and democratic governing body in the Middle East." That government, of course, was put in place by the U.S.-led coalition, over the objections of the U.N.
The United Nations again faces a choice: It can become involved in the critical process of rebuilding Iraq, or it can remain on the sidelines. If it does, it will be irrelevant, again. By choice.
Saddam wasn't a threat to the rest of the world. That has been proved by the fact that no weapons have been found. That was just a US fairytale made up to give it an excuse to invade a mineral rich nation.
Why the should the UN become involved. LEt the US pay for the damage they caused. They're the ones who blew the country up.
Debate?
This constant Right wing crap is getting tedious, so this will be my last response to whoever this federal right wingding is.
Well this certainly won't be my last response -- but I do agree that Fedral, who often puts out some interesting and reasonable stuff -- has been putting out a bunch of crap lately.
The United Nations is doing the best it can in a very, very difficult world.
No...it is not going to get its way all the time -- and no, it will not always do the right thing...but it is the last, best hope for humanity. And if the goddam conservatives of this country would just stop tying to undermine the organization at every turn, perhaps it could improve.
I asked you this question in another thread, Fedral, when you brought up the issue of the UN refusing to get tough with Iraq when it "ignored" a UN resolution:
Should the UN have gotten tougher with Israel -- much, much, much tougher with Israel -- because Israel has ignored dozens of UN resolutions?
What do you suppose would be an adequate response to a country that ignores many resolutions?
Frank. PLEASE don't hold your breath waiting for an answer to that one.
Current intelligence suggests that Iraqi WMDs are being hidden in three sites in Syria. I'm going to wait this one out, see what happens.
Just sounds like an excuse to bomb Syria!
It may surprise you Frank to know that I agree with you on enforcing U.N. resolutions on Israel.
I think if as long as nations like Israel, Iraq, etc. continue(d) to ignore U.N. resolutions with no consequences , the U.N. will remain powerless at anything except food distribution. (UNICEF does rock)
As to the quality of the articles recently, I decided to try a little experiment.
For each 'Commondreams' type article that I find my eyes and brain assaulted with on this board, I decided to post an even more wacked out 'right wing' article in an attempt to keep things 'fair and balanced'
As long as a number of you (and you KNOW who you are) continue to support your arguments or just to spout rhetoric that you find in the 'Republicans are the fount of all Evil' type left wing sites like Commondreams, I will seek out, find and post even more and more right wing whacko literature.
Y'all have been warned ....
Yes, monkeys fling their poop when agitated.
We've been warned.
PDiddie wrote:Yes, monkeys fling their poop when agitated.
We've been warned.
I see ... when a liberal posts what are obviously biased and unbalanced articles to support his point, they are 'reasonable'.
Yet when someone posts article going the other way to mock them a bit it is 'flinging poo'.
PD, let me send you a dollar so you can buy yourself a sense of humor.
Continue to post as much "more right wing whacko literature" as you want, Fedral. I seldom get to the sites you mentioned -- and I'm always interested in what the periphery of society is thinking.
I'm happy you are consistent in your thinking about "enforcing" UN resolutions. That is, in my opinion, right minded. (No pun intended there!)
What I personally think is wrong-minded -- or at very least, slightly off base -- is the notion that "enforcing" UN resolutions has anything to do with the "force" part of that word.
Pressure should be brought to bear -- as much as possible.
But the moment any institution -- UN, US, UK, whatever -- starts sending in troops and bombs -- they have conceded the high ground.
Essentially they've stopped trying to reason -- and are doing what the "enemy" is doing -- using force and physical coercion to get their way.
Look -- I'm not naive.
You (universal "you) were not going to stop the likes of Hitler or Napoleon with words and reason. And more than likely, you were not going to stop the likes of Saddam Hussein, with those things either.
But Saddam Hussein was contained -- no matter the rhetoric -- and the UN WAS attempting to enforce their resolution.
Fact is, more than likely, their resolution was met in most respects. The WMD simply are not there -- and that was the essence of the UN insistence.
"Regime change" was not part of it -- and properly so. That is not what the UN was set up for -- and if it were, its efforts might better be aimed at regime change in the United States as any place else in the world.
Railing against the UN is probably the lowest point of extreme right wing activity -- and they have lots of very low points in their efforting.
Reconsider your position. Support the institution, Fedral. It is humanity's best hope to make it through this stage of our evolution.
Frank,
Thanks for your always level headed and intelligent comments (even if I disagree with them sometimes).
I agree that force should always be the last alternative in most scenarios.
Saying that, I also believe that 10 years of sanctions with no end in sight was a bit too much.
I don't believe that a policy of 'contain him till he dies of old age and lets hope his successor is more reasonable' is acceptable. Especially when some countries were shoveling weapons and other items in the back door in violation of sanctions.
When I speak of 'enforcing' U.N. resolutions, it is not just the use of the word 'force'. It means that all United Nations members band together to obey the sanctions and make the sanctioned country comply.
What do you think the result in Israel would be in regards to the Palestinian situation if all countries froze Israeli bank accounts. If all countries did not allow importation of Israeli goods. If all countries refused to sell any more arms and equipment to the Israelis. If all countries refused to discuss any other topics with the Israelis until the Palestinian situation is resolved.
I can guarantee you that the Israelis would come to the table with a solution in a minute.
Imagine the same scenario if one country, say America, chose to ignore the sanctions and supply the Israelis with everything they asked for ... in that scenario, there would be no reason for the Israelis to come to the bargaining table.
In ten years of U.N sanctions, Saddam was supplied by the Russians, Chinese, French, Germans, Syrians and several other countries turned a blind eye to items 'slipping through' to the Iraqis.
In my opinion, had the sanctions been enforced by all countries, we would not be in this current situation.
Thats the kind of enforcement I am speaking of.
Some of the resolutions regarding Israel have been going a lot longer than 10 years.
As for the statement "10 years of sanctions with no end in sight", I would like to ask. No end to what?
The building of weapons that didn't exist? The death of countless children through the inability to get everything from food to medicines (stopped by the US).
The US went to Iraq to steal it's oil. The most wasteful nation on the face of the earth needs to get it's energy from somewhere! And scum like Bush and his cronies don't care who or how many they have to murder to get it.
Exactly what contention about what the UN should now be doing in Federal's article do you disagree with?
Isn't the point of the UN to aid nations in need?
Should the poor Iraqi people be held accountable for money borrowed by a ruthless tyrant they never put in power and on many occasions tried to remove at the cost of their own lives?
Should the UN not put aside its differences to help make an unquestionably better world?
I always believed that liberals are compassionate towards the needs of those less fortunate individuals throughout the world?
I'm appalled to find that too often, they put their political alligances ahead of this very altrusitic goal.
Bush DID lie about the reasons we needed to go to war. But now, Irag is both free and in turmoil. Should the Iraqis suffer for the actions of Saddam and Bush, people they never elected?
Isreal is a sovergn democracy, one thats also filled with educated people. Saddam is a ruthless tyrant that held millions under his rule with torture and fear.
Of course the UN should respond differently in these two cases.
IN the case of Israel, they don't respond at all.
Centroles wrote:Bush DID lie about the reasons we needed to go to war. But now, Irag is both free and in turmoil. Should the Iraqis suffer for the actions of Saddam and Bush, people they never elected?
Excellent point, Centroles, and well stated.
And my answer, as obviously would yours, would be: No, they shouldn't!
so Frank, I take it that you advocate the UN to do what this article states it should now do.
Forgive Iraq's debts
Get involved in the reconstruction process
Offer Iraq whatever humanitarian aid it can provide
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace