http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/1828625 Don't go back to U.N., Mr. President By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER Don't go back, Mr. President. You walked away from the United Nations at great cost and with great courage. Don't go back. No one knows when this war will end. But when it does, you'll have to decide the terms. Yet in the last few days both you and Tony Blair have said you will seek a new U.N. resolution, postwar, providing for the governance of Iraq. Why in God's name would we want to re-empower the French in deciding the postwar settlement? Why would we want to grant them influence over the terms, the powers, the duration of an occupation bought at the price of American and British blood? France, Germany and Russia did everything they could to sabotage your policy before the war. Will they want to see it succeed after? The Frankfurt Allgemeine reports that on Feb. 21, Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, wrote his Foreign Ministry that the United States, blocked on a U.N. war resolution and fighting alone, would later "remorsefully return to the council" to seek help in rebuilding Iraq. That is their game. Why should we play into it? And why return the issue to Kofi Annan, who had the audacity to declare the war illegitimate because it is supported by only 17 U.N. resolutions and not 18? Mr. President, we lost at the United Nations. Badly. But that signal defeat had one significant side benefit. For the first time, Americans got to see what the United Nations truly is. The experience has been bracing. The result has been an enormous and salutary shift in American public opinion. You've seen the polls: 75 percent of Americans disapprove of U.N. handling of the situation with Iraq. In December, polls showed a majority of Americans opposed to a war without U.N. backing. Today, after the U.N. debacle, 71 percent support the war regardless. What happened? Americans finally had a look inside the sausage factory. Their image of the "U.N." as a legitimating institution had always been deeply sentimental, based on the U.N. of their youth -- UNICEF, refugee help, earthquake assistance. A global Mother Teresa. That's what they thought, and that's why they held it in esteem and cared about what it said. Now they know that the "U.N." is not UNICEF collection boxes, but a committee of cynical, resentful, ex-imperial powers like France and Russia serving their own national interests -- and delighting in frustrating America's -- without the slightest reference to the moral issues at stake. The American public understands that this is not a body in which to entrust American values or U.S. security. On Sept. 12, 2002, you gave the United Nations a fair test: Act like a real instrument for collective security -- or die like the League of Nations. The United Nations failed spectacularly. The American people saw it. And they are now with you in leaving the United Nations behind. Why resurrect it after the war? When not destructive, as on Iraq, it is useless, as on North Korea. China has blocked the Security Council from even meeting to deal with North Korea's brazen nuclear breakout. On this one, the Security Council wants the United States to unilaterally engage North Korea -- this amid daily excoriations of the United States for "unilateralism." The hypocrisy is stunning. But the deeper issue is that the principal purpose of the Security Council is not to restrain tyrants, but to restrain the United States. The Security Council is nothing more than the victory coalition of 1945. That was six decades ago. Let a new structure be born out of the Iraq coalition. Maybe it will acquire a name, maybe it won't. But it is this coalition of freedom -- led by the United States and Britain and about 30 other nations, including such moderate Arab states as Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar -- that should set and institutionalize the terms for postwar Iraq. Not the Security Council. If we're going to negotiate terms, it should be with allies who helped us, who share our vision and our purposes. There were wars and truces and treaties before the United Nations was created -- as there will be after its demise. No need to formally leave the United Nations, Mr. President. Just ignore it. Without us, it will wither away. Fighting a war and rebuilding Iraq are tasks enough, I know. But serendipity -- and France -- has given you the opportunity to build new international structures without the albatross of this hopeless anachronism. No act of commission is required. Just omission. Don't return, Mr. President. Don't give Ambassador Pleuger the satisfaction of seeing you crawl back.
Most compelling points in this article: 1. what would France's or Germany's interests be in a post-war Iraq AFTER the political battles with the US and UK before the Security Council? 2. the whole back and forth in approach by the UN in regards to Iraq as compared to N. Korea.
Some people believe that we need to rebuild our relationship with the United nations. Part of that is letting the U.N. determine the fate of Iraq. It seems like the other group is saying the U.N. wants to jump on the bandwagon. And that we don't have to repair any relationships because they will back on our side. Especially if the war is short. Very interesting to see what we do.
I'm for the war and completely disagree with the UN on the situation. I also agree that France and other countries will be looking like some free-loading SOBs. However, I still think working with the UN on post-war plans would help to restore relationships quicker than anything else. To me, that is more important, than just ignoring them out of vindictiveness.
i can see how you'd see a spirit of vindictiveness there...but i think there are some legitimate concerns, as well...particularly the intentions of france and others in managing a post-war Iraq. do they really want to see that succeed?? or would they, out of a spirit of vindictiveness, act in such a way as to guarantee its failure...then pointing at Bush and saying, "see what you lead us in to...you should have listened to us!"
I really feel that the US has to include some other nations in the rebuilding, just for the fact that it doesn't look like a US occupation of Iraq. Having said that though I don't think it has to be the UN council that they include. They need to include the nations that have shown support and also the Arabic nations that surround Iraq. They cannot get into a situation where the people of Iraq and the Arabic world in general view this as an American takeover of the country. Taht will only contribute to the hatred felt towards Americans by people in the Middle East. CK
totally agreed...i don't want it to be US alone...but i really don't think i want France leading the charge.
The bill will be paid by Iraqi oil...we don't need any other nations. I am torn on this issue, just because we are the most powerful nation on the planet does not mean that we don't value other nations opinions. I think the UN serves a purpose, but it is an ineffective entity. I have heard that they may put the rebuild Iraq coalition under NATO control, which France opted out of. Now, THIS is a good idea... DD
The UN is a useless piece of crap. The voting structure is stupid. The institution is bankrupt. Kill it. Pax Americana.
The US will occupy Iraq, not the UN. American and Brit peacekeepers. The UN will be welcome for reconstruction (including financial) and humanitarian efforts, nothing more. France will not be welcome. It will be allowed to donate money, that's about it. The Iraqis don't want the French there anyway. They will remember who tried to keep Saddam in power.
I heard a Congressional hearing where this was debated. The oil proceeds will not cover the entire bill. BTW, a large portion of Iraq oil sales (from the oil for food program) goes to Kuwait for reparations for GW I. Kuwait is owed something on the order of 170 billion dollars.
The question is how petty will the US be wrt letting France take part in the post war Iraq reconstruction. I believe that GWB is that petty.
Petty? Not allowing France to take part in reconstruction because they call George Bush "dumb," would be petty. Not allowing France to take part in the the reconstruction that only exists because of our own sweat and blood while they opposed us at every turn, is not petty. However, I think it would be a bold move to allow France and other countries who opposed us to have a hand in reconstruction. I believe that these relationships need to be restored, and I don't know if a better opportunity to do this would come along for quite some time.
Treeman, I hope to God, I truly do, that the people become free and that we can introduce democracy to a people and that it will rub off on the rest of the region. I can think of nothing better than a free Iraq, ruled by its people, and the US becomes the shining star of freedom and liberty. But I see the US's track record of those it has supported and I am skeptical. We are talking about the Iraqi people's will to decide their fate. What if they decide that they want an Islamic based democratic regime like the one that was Elected into power in Algeria and then overturned by a French/US backed military dictator who I feel is as vile as Saddam?
Oh no. Well, we'd better stop the war. Too expensive, I guess... How horrible. No one should have to repay their debts... This just infuriates me. I believe that you are petty enough to personalize this and think that the sole reason that we would shut France out would be Bush's pettiness. Perhaps we simply don't desire to repay their knife in the back with kindness? Just curious: If the Iraqis were to shun French aid and participation in a postwar Iraq, how would you feel about it then? A good many of them don't want to have anything to do with the French. They are quite aware of who has worked to keep Saddam in power and who has not.
Khan: As secular as the Iraqi people are, I would seriously doubt that such a government would come to national power there. It is of course possible (anithing is), but extremely unlikely. Besides, one of the main objectives of this campaign is to wuipe the slate clean and start with a new strategy in the Middle East. Secular democracy and capitalism for all, down with tyrants! Something along those lines. So many people fail to realize that this is really the primary drive behind unseating Saddam... It is going to be anm awesome experiment. And if it fails then we will try something else. History is history.
I agree that Iraq was secular, but whether that was the people or simply Saddam and the Ba'ath party is a different story. My concern is that our track record has proven us to be flighty when the going gets tough and a few marine's get killed and we leave Iraq without fully transforming it. This is a huge commitment and if it works out as you are confident that it will, then I would be thrilled. Saddam and the Ba'ath party were always secular in nature and to hear Saddam talk about God is great over and over and make religious statements is amusing. I think he knows its the end and has too much pride ( a deadly sin ) to step aside, accept defeat and save the lives of his people. The problem that also arises is that most of our attempts to make third world countries with extremely high illiteracy rates into democratic, capitalistic societies has not worked maybe because the society was not advanced enough to advocate it or to understand it. It worked in Japan and Germany because they wer first world nations with an educated society ripe to adhere to something new. Ouch...I'm watching the bombing of Baghdad on TV........I was watching this special on historical cities and they talked about Baghdad from 900 to until the Mongols invaded in the 1300's how it was the most technologically advanced city and the most beautiful city in the world. The best science, medicine, math and philosophy was there and it was called the "ornament of the world" I believe. Its sad to see any city (or whats left after '91) fall like that. I hope you're right treeman, I really do...
I think arguments saying that democracy can't work in Iraq seriously underestimate the Iraqi people. Are we saying we're so much naturally smarter than them that we can make democracy work...but there's no way they could? That's absurd. liberty is a good thing.
