PostWar Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by dgabriel, Apr 3, 2003.

  1. What will your contribution be?
     
  2. Babak

    Babak

    I'm playing with the idea of creating a poll about the whole thing.
     
  3. msfe

    msfe

    UN rule or UN role?

    New divisions are hard to reconcile

    Leader
    Thursday April 3, 2003
    The Guardian

    Tony Blair acknowledged yesterday that there are disagreements between Britain and the US over postwar Iraq. Before the war started, admissions of this kind were a no-go area. But there will be more such talk when Colin Powell sits down with his EU and Nato opposite numbers in Brussels today to discuss the issue. Washington and London disagree not just about Iraq's future. There are divisions too over the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, and over US sword-rattling against Syria and Iran. But the question is whether these interesting differences are sufficient to lead the government to draw a line; or whether, as Mr Blair characteristically says, they can be reconciled.

    If experience is a guide, the government will end up supinely supporting whatever line the Bush administration finally takes. In the meantime, however, the government is staking out a more independent position on postwar Iraq (as in some respects are the Conservatives). In practice, this means moving closer to EU allies. Almost all European nations want the UN at the centre of the rebuilding of Iraq soon after the Saddam regime falls. Now, for once, Britain and France are on the same track, as Dominique de Villepin has said. Much of the pace in this refreshing but not yet conclusive change of tone is being made by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, who on Tuesday proposed a UN-sponsored conference to settle the shape of a post-Saddam administration. While Mr Blair sticks to the mantra that any post-conflict arrangements must be "UN endorsed", Mr Straw wants to give the UN "the leading role" in organising a new Iraqi settlement. In an interview yesterday Mr Straw went out of his way to say that Iraq must be governed by Iraqis. "It will not be foreign nationals running the Iraqi government. That is not the purpose of this action," he proclaimed. Quite right. Britain should now sponsor a new UN resolution saying just that.

    But tell that to Donald Rumsfeld and his rightwing allies, who seem to have the upper hand over the Washington doves, including Mr Powell. Under their plan for Iraq - the only one currently in any position to be implemented - there would be no substantial UN role at all. The US military would rule Iraq for an indefinite period, not just for a few days or weeks. General Jay Garner would run Iraq through 23 ministries, each headed by US hawks hand-picked by Mr Rumsfeld (who has rejected eight state department nominees as too "bureaucratic"). When Mr Powell speaks today, he will speak as a beaten man. He will speak from Mr Rumsfeld's script, offering a UN role. What his listeners want, though, is UN rule. Mr Blair may think the difference is reconcilable. Many others, not least the Iraqis, will not.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,928644,00.html
     
  4. I'll pay my taxes...but I do have several business ides in my head when Cuba become's free...90 miles away, The Jewel of the Caribean. I mean you gotta see the water ( not polluted or overfished ).......peace
     
  5. Im going to exploit them......the same way SH exploied the oil for food and humanitarian program.