This sounds... not good. ______________ Blair's perversity does him harm and Iraq no good A handover to the UN is now the only way to meet this crisis Polly Toynbee Wednesday May 12, 2004 The Guardian Iraq is near meltdown. The White House and Downing Street seem transfixed in a state of denial, incapable even of damage limitation. The UN - the last best chance - is on the brink of walking away from Iraq, leaving Bush and Blair to reap the whirlwind they have sown. Iraq inhabits a political and legal void with a foreign force failing to keep basic order. A few days ago, supply convoys carrying food for US forces couldn't get through to Baghdad, leaving troops on hard rations. Americans and their troops have long been barricaded in, apart from heavily armoured sorties. Western journalists can no longer operate: as Jonathan Steele eloquently described, even the most battle-hardened are holed up, relying on Iraqi journalists' reports. Showing a western face is too dangerous. On June 30, the fabled handover of sovereignty is to take place. In Washington they are clinging to the mantra that this marks a turning point, with no reason why things should get better. It's only six weeks away, but there is still no plan, not a single piece of paper yet describing exactly what powers are being transferred to whom. Who will these 10,000 prisoners belong to? How much of the oil revenues will flow directly into the interim government? Who will the new government be? Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN special representative, was sent to Iraq to ease the passage to democracy much against his will. With his arm twisted by Kofi Annan and George Bush, he reluctantly agreed but warned of the risk of ensnaring the UN in this ill-fated US/UK adventure. As the murder of its previous envoy showed, the UN is unloved in a country that suffered 12 years of corruptly administered UN sanctions. Brahimi warned that the US would never hand over enough power to make a truly independent UN intervention possible. He was right. Now, according to Tony Blair's close advisers, he is about to walk away from Iraq, leaving Britain and America alone to stew after June 30. Bush and Blair could have tried to save themselves by handing all control to the UN. It would have been hard to persuade the rest of the world to take it on and the price would have been high. All power over Iraq would have to be relinquished forever. Large payments and inducements would be needed to persuade the likes of Pakistan and India to offer blue-beret troops. Above all, it would mean an implicit admission of failure for an American administration contemptuous of multilateralism in general, and the UN in particular. Even so, a dignified handover might have been a lesser humiliation than facing what may be worse disasters to come. Where was Blair's voice suggesting this wiser course of action? Now the drowning men are letting their last liferaft slip. Brahimi is struggling with Paul Bremer, the US governing power, over what sovereignty is to be handed over in June. He plans a government led by an honorary triumvirate, but run by technocrats not planning to stand for office, a nascent civil service. But Bremer is resisting Brahimi's attempts to disband all members of the present discredited governing council, dominated by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi, who have been running the country on networks of patronage and nepotism. Now only real power will convince Iraqis they are no longer occupied, but Bremer is denying the interim government the right to make new laws. It is unclear how much of the oil money the new government will control: the US is keeping the strings tightly drawn, according to Dr Toby Dodge, Iraq expert and author of Inventing Iraq: The Failure of Nation Building and a History Denied. The interim government will not even control its own armed forces, let alone US/UK armies. Robin Cook points out that contracts have been placed for the building of 14 "enduring" US bases. Since Donald Rumsfeld closed US bases in Saudi Arabia it is not surprising Iraqis fear the US never means to leave Iraq. As his ratings fall, the Bush doctrine is giving way to emergency expediency, yet Rumsfeld true-believers still see Iraq as the centre of future US power in the Middle East. Iraqis can be glad Saddam has gone, yet hate the invader too. The mood is changing. Seasoned experts returning from Iraq say the US/UK forces are causing more insecurity than they suppress. Their presence foments the uprising, paradoxically creating the united nationhood many feared would never happen. Rebellion against the invader is becoming the national founding legend for a new state. How can a new government ever exert its own authority while humbled by the roar of patrolling US Humvees? Robin Cook now calls for all foreign troops to depart in January after the elections. On the other side, conventional Foreign Office opinion fears a rapid US withdrawal if politics demand it, reckless of what chaos it leaves behind. Iraq, they say, risks descending into failed statehood: think Liberia, Libya or Somalia. So the old colonial urge to impose order on others remains strong, though Iraq may sound the last post for the idea that countries are ever better governed by outsiders. The mighty west has been brutally confronted with the limits of superpower here, not a bad lesson to learn for a new century. Television silence from Iraq is what Bush craves, yet swallowing enough pride to beg the rest of the world for help is beyond him. True, an abject White House beseeching Jacques Chirac for UN assistance is beyond imagining. If Iraq reaches the point of ungovernable implosion the UN may be forced to act - but Chirac will let Bush roast until November. UK troops will stay until 2006 - that is the official line and it is a dreadful prospect. Those close to Blair say Brahimi will strongly advise Annan to have nothing to do with any transfer of responsibility to the UN, after his experiences in Iraq. So there will be a feeble UN resolution accepting but not approving the political process. But even if every obstacle stands in its path, from Bush to Chirac, we should keep calling for a handover to the UN now, with an elected Iraqi democracy in January deciding how soon all foreign forces should depart. Tony Blair is stranded with responsibility but no authority. He is to blame for things he cannot control, obliged to take a moral hit for anything that happens in Iraq. This is his own choice, for he could start to carve out an autonomous position. His popularity in America gives him some power in US election year, but he says he will not "grandstand" for effect or risk the "huge" influence he claims to wield in the White House. This martyr-like perversity does him harm and Iraq no good. He need not say he was wrong: no politician can, without being slaughtered. But he can promote a new strategy to meet the crisis. Why not offer to put British soldiers in blue berets, whatever the US does? But, persuading himself it is only some 3,000 extremists causing the trouble, he is a man deaf to the bad news from Iraq.
I'd say this presents the worst case scenario. Hopefully we'll be able to patch together a graceful exit that isn't a total disaster for Iraqi's or Americans.
Handover to the UN? They ran away to Crete at the first sign of trouble. We and only we have to fix this mess. We and only we have the capability to fix it.
It pisses me off that America stepped in that antbed, but it's our mess to clean up. I'd LOVE to see this whole flaming pile of poop given to the UN, but things just aren't stable enough right now.
If the US would hand over decision making as well, the UN would step in. Read the article, as well as previous statements by them and many other countries. They don't want to share the risks when they don't have a say in how things go. Give them a voice, in how it's all run and they will be there.
" It's only six weeks away, but there is still no plan, not a single piece of paper yet describing exactly what powers are being transferred to whom. Who will these 10,000 prisoners belong to? How much of the oil revenues will flow directly into the interim government? Who will the new government be?" Is this true ??!?!?!?! so there isnt even a real plan?!?!? what is going on????!?!?
This is really sad. You've hit the nail on the head. The date has been set for political reasons, not for the good of the Iraqis, not for the good of the U.S., and not for the good of the region.
Wow, they did such a wonderful job in Somalia and other places! What makes you think they'd be able to pull this off without our support? I guarantee you they'd have to at least use our airlift and sealift to even get over there. And who says that the Iraqis would shoot at them less? A polygot UN group with different languages, different military institutional cultures, different radio frequencies, different supply lines, different everything would be an absolute disaster.
I would rather that a coalition of NATO and Arab allies actually did the job, but we've bungeled it so badly that I feel the UN couldn't do a worse job. They would at least have a plan, and would be seen as more credible by many of those on the ground. Of course they would still be shot at, and there would still be those that wanted power for themselves. I also agree with you that the U.S. would still be used and be parto of the force. I think that's only wise. We have an insight to conditions and things going on there that no other country does at the moment.
I wouldn't say that we've bungeled the situation over there. There is no way the UN could do better. Remember Somalia? The various militaries fought amongst themselves while their members were gunned down by the various militias. And most of the nations will not be there for the good of Iraq, but for the fact the UN pays them blood money to put their army under the blue helmet. That was the case with the Pakistanis and Malaysians in Somalia.
Whether or not the UN is capable of better administration is debatable but a couple of things would most likely be true if the UN were in charge: (1) UN administration would probably be much more transparent and open than that of the US. The circumstances that made the Iraqi abuses possible would probably not exist under UN auspices. (2) UN administration would necessarily be less heavy handed and much less viewed and resented as an occupying, oppressive force than the solely US-led effort.
UN: Al-Sistani Welcomes UN Democracy Proposals For Iraq By Robert McMahon United Nations, 11 May 2004 (RFE/RL) -- The United Nations said today that Iraq's most influential Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has voiced his support for United Nations proposals for a democratic transition in Iraq. UN spokesman Fred Eckhard said the proposals were transmitted in meetings held in Iraq between the UN envoy for Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, and Iraqi officials, including Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a member of Iraq's Governing Council, who then passed them on to al-Sistani. Eckhard said al-Hakim told Brahimi that al-Sistani was "pleased and found the proposals balanced and positive."Eckhard said Brahimi and Iraqi officials spoke about "various aspects of the transition." Eckhard said ideas for convening a National Conference to debate programs for national reconciliation were also discussed. Brahimi, a special adviser on Iraq for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, has been working on a plan for the democratic transition in Iraq.
The UN so far despite having any real power or say has already gotten the most influential shi'ite cleric on board. The UN may or may not have done better than us in the beginning. But they can learn from our mistakes. They will at least have a plan should they come in. We had no plan, and I think that was the reason we bungled it. I don't think the folks on the ground except for the torture scenes are to blame so much, as is the fact that they weren't given a clear path and direction. We were told we'd be giving control back on June 30th, but it's only now that we have any idea who we are giving control over too. We weren't prepared to stop the looting, deal with the power outages, insurgency attacks, resistence etc. Those mistakes have been made, and another agency coming in now can learn from them.
No. That is simply not true. Everywhere the UN has gone, there has been the stink of corruption and criminality. UN peacekeepers have committed atrocities that makes what a few depraved reservists look like some low-rent hazing. link You really want these folks going into Iraq?
interesting article bama but it does not really address the issue: " It's only six weeks away, but there is still no plan, not a single piece of paper yet describing exactly what powers are being transferred to whom. Who will these 10,000 prisoners belong to? How much of the oil revenues will flow directly into the interim government? Who will the new government be?" we cant really bash NATO forces ( we are not there yet) when at present we dont really have a plan at all !!?!?
Some of these articles from the Guardian are just plain trash. These one is so obviously imbued with the journalist's political leaning that it's difficult to read through. It often seems like they carry a chip on their shoulder.
Is it more likely that: 1) no plan exists AT ALL, not EVEN ONE SINGLE SHEET OF PAPER or - 2) this journalist is not privy to it, so he doesn't know wth he's talking about.
They tend to have quite an ugly anti-American bias, wouldn't you say? But to those who do support UN intevention, can you see my point about the problems inherent in any international, cooperative force? So and so would want to be in charge. So and so does want to take orders from somebody else. It would be a disaster. Besides, who is better trained, our troops....or so the troops from......Bangladesh?
