The US, UN & Iraq II

Would it be possible for A2K to add a little symbol to their list of forums: -P ??

Dagmar

The assumption posed by all these idealistic words is that countries who have the military forces (namely the US and Brittain)required to enforce these grand words would relinquish those forces to the will of the UN and then in turn we should sign on to the international criminal court which could in turn prosecute those same forces caused by leadership that we could conceivably not control. Is this insanity or what?

Or do you subscribe to the naive notion that we can send a telegram to all offenders to appear in court and bring your own handcuffs.??????

I realize that neither is mine, relying on one source mostly, being the NPR and BBC broadcasts. And I surely hope the reports are exaggerated or at least that the reactions are stilled caused by fear of persecution. I still however believe that international administration would be beneficial for all in the long run, Iraq may accept its legitimacy easier, US could breathe easier, Great Britain and Australia would appease a part of its population whose opinion is turned against their leaders, and especially for international relations, lessening the tensions that have arisen during the conflict.

The U.S. delegation was present at the time of the drafting and proclaiming the Millenial resolution and subscribed to it. And no, I do not think it is insanity. There are a few international tribunals that have operated rather well. The Criminal Court is broader in its competencies but I sincerely doubt they would turn against UN forces in prosecution.
I would be very interested in discussing the following in concrete terms: What is a desirable alternative to the kind of international order proposed by the UN?

Dag, this is a pretty loose thread, but I think that is outside its bounds for sure. Maybe if you open a new thread - perhaps?

I agree with you wholeheartedly Dagmaraka. There's an American tendency to assume that if the UN doesn't work perfectly we should chuck it. I think international cooperation and the development of a tribunal are inevitable. The question is whether we do our best to get there and make the institutions as solid as possible, or whether we walk a very bloody and destructive path before winding up there.

Is this subject outside of the topic? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. US, UN, IRAQ implies an international forum, I think. But we could always start another...

Re: international law. Should every country automatically have the right to commit atrocities or break the law in other ways? Should the US alone have special privileges? I don't think so...

But I thought the U.S. relation to the UN and the future of this relation after the war on Iraq are directly related to what is supposed to be core of this thread? For that is what the question is about. It follows from the current situation. But sure, I can take it elsewhere if it does not fit into here.

Regarding the administration of the formation of a new gov't in Iraq after the war.

Option 1. Allow and encourage the UN to form and control the formation of a new Iraqi gov't.
First let's take a look at who would be most influential in the UN for such an effort. The five members of the permanent security council. Russia, France, China, Britain, and the US. Can you imagine the President ever allowing Russia, France or China any persuasion in this effort in light of the recent debacle in the UN. I don't think so and I agree they should not even be allowed in the country.
Option2: The US and Britain have earned the right to dictate the plan for the formation of a new gov't. It is evident that the reluctance to allow members of the Iraqi dissedent group(Iraqi refugees and immigrants from Iraq to other parts of the world) to participate in the current actions have been for good reason. They have seen what happened in Afghanistan by allowing the warlords to maintain their fiefdoms and even in many cases enlarge those fiefdoms. They are determined to do this one right and that is to force all factions to start from a level playing field and may the best man win as it should be

We have won the right to make this a success or not---I admit the very real danger of not winning the information war or the war of words in order to provide the truth to the Iraqi people. As of this moment we have failed miserably in this regard---whether or not we can remedy this failing remains to be seen but I can assure all observers that I have witnessed the debacle of hundreds of UN and other agencies involved in this effort---- we can not allow this to happen this time or the fears of all will be realized and those soldiers who died in this effort will again have died for nothing.

We should however encourage participation of our already formed coalition of the willing (40 plus) and I am confident they will make significant contributions but it will not be under the cloak of the UN.
That will not be a publicly happy event for Tony Blair but I truly believe he has accepted the inevitability of this and probably secretly agrees with it.

Dagmar

I believe a separate thread on International Law would be better served than incorporating it in this thread. I promise I will not participate because I have no expertise in law international or otherwise. Try to subdue your disappointment that I will not participate.

ok, there is a globalization thread, perhaps IL discussion can move there, although I did not really mean to discuss law, just the U.S. approach to UN after war. Nemmind.

Well, I would hope that you would also have learned from our collective experience that hostility only begets hostility.

Yes, the cooperation on the UN level would be difficult, but still more legitimate than the administration lead by the U.S. It would not have much more success also within Iraq itself, I am sure, but could help to bring the international relations to more cooperation, which is a desirable thing in and of itself.

Perception wrote: "Option2: The US and Britain have earned the right to dictate the plan for the formation of a new gov't... "

This argumentation comes also from the officials, especially on the American side and if you believe the war was justified in the first place, then it is understandable. (I would not go as far as the right to dictate anything, but nemmind). Yet we get into trouble again when groups and countries with differing opinions on this will get into dispute. For those countries that were against the war lead outside of the UN will be against the administration under the auspices of the U.S., I suspect. The coalition is part of the UN and surely has to be significantly present in the reconstruction efforts, but if others will be excluded from it, it may spell more international distress than up to now.

Wasn't the point of this military action to give the Iraqi people the right to determine their own form of government?


Slap me if I'm wrong but does killing the bad guys and half the good guys give us the right to take over for the bad guys???

This is democracy by whose definition?

Bush's

Dagmaraka wrote:

<The coalition is part of the UN and surely has to be significantly present in the reconstruction efforts, but if others will be excluded from it, it may spell more international distress than up to now.>

True but this could easily have been a unified effort and they could have been a part of the rebuilding effort. By selfishly putting their interests ahead of the world they forfeited their right to anything.
They must accept the blame for further international distress IMHO.

We can easily continue without them---good luck in their efforts to continue without us. Before you say yeah that's another example of American arrogance----remember we almost begged them to participate and support us----Chirac overplayed his cards and can be seen falling on his sword (I hope )

Gelisgesti wrote:

Wasn't the point of this military action to give the Iraqi people the right to determine their own form of government?

I take back that compliment earlier----you are back to your old tricks of reading and quoting only what serves your purpose. I draw your attention to something further in that post that answers your question:

<They are determined to do this oneright and that means leveling the playing field for all factions which means not allowing any faction to have an advantage so that the best man can win.>

Just so you cannot misunderstand---when I said may the best man win that means after the Iraqi people have had a chance to look at and listen to all the candidates to govern their country they can then make decisions for the parliment and PM---this is the type of government that Turkey has and it seems to work OK even though Turkey is an Islamic country. After this happens it is out of our hands----by this time all the troops will be gone except for advisors to the new gov't and military. These people will wear civilian clothes and for all practical purposes will be civilian.

When does anything give anyone a right to dictate?

I don't honestly think the "point of this military action [is] to give the Iraqi people the right to determine their own form of government." I saw today on Fox (not at my house!!) that this invasion is being called "Operation Freedom." Hmmm. (And I got a bridge to sell ya....)

We are going to win this thing, that is a no brainer. What bothers me with Fox is that by escorting any point of view that is not absolutely 100 percent laudatory about this war, they are setting themselves up. So that when the war is won they can crow that they were prescient and steadfast while all other's were carping nay-saying and deserting the ship. On that ground they will argue that it is legitimate to go after these people as disloyal. In my opinion,Fox is not a news service, it is part of the problem.

Chirac enjoys greater domestic support and approval at the moment than De Gaule ever did, I believe. Should certain allegations relating to his involvement with Saddam and Saddam's Iraq over the past 25 years or so prove substantiive, Chirac likely will be somewhat diminished in stature. It is unwise to embarrass a Frenchman. It is madness to embarrass 40 or 50 million of them.

And I foresee a major UN role in Reconstruction. Bush The Younger owes that to Blair, and whatever else I believe of The Current President, I believe he will pay that debt.

I mostly stay away from Safire's op-ed pieces in the NYTimes because he is so-o-o-o self-serving, almost embarrassing. However, here's one interesting point he makes today in a list of ho-hums about the invasion:

"Most inexplicable weakness of our intelligence and air power: the inability to locate and obliterate all of Saddam's TV propaganda facilities."

What leapt to my mind was the fact that the CIA, top to bottom, has opposed this invasion from the get-go. Do you suppose they have actually tried to prevent.....? backstopped?..... impeded?.... obfuscated?..... provided erroneous targets?.... Are they not particular fans of George W. and the mighty think-tankers? (In my view, American should think of getting rid of all tanks connected to Washington. Only water tanks should be permitted in US from now on...)