that you won't like what Oliphant writes below on Kerry's Iraq plan, and, frankly, neither do I, but given the current set of circumstances, I see little alternative but to try it.
Maybe I'm just missing something here, but I think there is some kind of mistaken impression that Bush doesn't want the UN involved in Iraq. And that's just not what I'm perceiving.
The Bush administration, as I recall, HAS been pushing a VERY RELUCTANT UN "leadership" into taking a greater role in helping to form Iraq's government. And they have sought, and received, the UN's approval for CPA activities in Iraq. They have a UN special representative currently in Baghdad trying to create some semblance of consensus amongst the various parties as to what form the interim government will take on June 30th.
Just take a look at these UN resolutions related to Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam:
casi.org.uk
And the UN WAS in Iraq, but all it took was one bombing of their headquarters and they turned tail and ran. Their security supervisor was later fired for his negligence in refusing US offers to provide security, because the UN didn't want to create the appearance of collusion with the Bush administration.
Furthermore, I believe the Bush administration has been requesting NATO involvement in Iraq, in order to place US forces under THEIR control, and not that of the highly politicized and incompetent UN leadership.
Putting US forces under the direct military command of the UNSC, the very council in which two permanent members REFUSED to enforce 17 binding resolutions against Saddam's regime, would have been unthinkable.
However, I believe the Bush administration was very amenable to UN participation in the creation of an interim government, given that France and Russia did not attempt to inject their own vested interests (full payment of all previous debts against Saddam's Iraq) were not permitted to be a a factor.
And don't forget that the UN wanted the $18 Billion in US foreign aid to Iraq to be parceled out by the UN, and not the US. Given the corruption we've seen in the oil for food program, Bush was absolutely correct in retaining control over how these funds were spent.
Furthermore, as I recall, Kofi Annan refused to set up a UN peace-keeping operation in Iraq, but wanted to have the existing US force placed directly under his control.
news.ninemsn.com.au
I personally welcome the "umbrella" of UN participation.. But tell me where they are? Tell me why ONE SINGLE BOMBING of their headquarters, and the following exodus of every one of their staff members, should give the US any reason to believe they are capable of fulfilling a nation-building operation?
The UN leadership is going to have to come to grips with doing its job, and not trying to be a proxy for injecting itself into American politics and trying to de-seat Bush.
Hawk |
