Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (49007)	6/13/2004 2:31:38 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 89467

and Blair is in Bush's corner...? along with Powell and Cheney....against this group they are NOTHING BUT HACKS CC

To: Skywatcher who wrote (49007)	6/13/2004 3:07:11 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND IRAQ The UN risks losing its clout BY CECELIA M. LYNCH Ceceilia M. Lynch teaches political science at the University of California, Irvine. June 13, 2004 Can the United Nations maintain its moral legitimacy while giving its stamp of approval to U.S. actions in Iraq? This is a key question after the Security Council's passage last week of a U.S.-authored resolution on Iraq. This vote, along with a generally favorable reception for President George W. Bush at the G-8 summit of major industrial powers in Georgia, drew praise for forging a new era of cooperation in a world deeply divided over the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The recent prison torture scandals have chastened the Bush administration, the story goes, so it came begging to the UN and made significant concessions after turning its back on the organization in the months leading up to the war. But while it appears that the Prodigal Son has returned to the fold and is reaping the rewards, the United States remains largely unrepentant and continues to undermine UN and Iraqi authority in words and actions. Washington's moral legitimacy has been in tatters for months; now the UN's is at stake as well. The UN's moral standing - the sense that it stands for what is fair and right in the community of nations - is among its most potent persuasive powers. Lacking an army or trade authority, it is one major way that the UN gets nations to cooperate against problems such as hunger, poverty and promoting peace. The very reason that the Untied States returned to the UN, hat in hand, is because it needs to rebuild its own moral legitimacy to persuade other countries to provide material assistance to Iraq. Washington also hopes that international approval of the June 30 transfer of power will encourage dissident Iraqis to fall into line. Ironically, the UN gained legitimacy in much of the world in refusing to approve the war last year. If it now is perceived as deferring to the United States, it will lose moral authority not only in Iraq, but in much of the Middle East and Third World. The UN Charter obligates it to work collectively and effectively "for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace." For both moral and pragmatic reasons, it must do what it can to foster "peace and prosperity," along with human rights and democratic governance, in Iraq. But a brief look at U.S. actions in Iraq reveals serious ethical malfunctions, including prison torture, shutting down of newspapers and employing former Baath party security officials. Most of the public debate about the UN resolution focused on whether the new Iraqi interim government would have veto power over continuing U.S. military actions. The short answer, of course, is that it will not, though close consultation is supposed to occur. Compromises on this issue enabled various Security Council and Bush administration officials to claim happily that the resolution guarantees "full Iraqi sovereignty" and the "effective end of the Coalition Provisional Authority." Yet the Interim Government represents in large part a reshuffling of the hand-picked Governing Council of last year, which never gained sufficient legitimacy in Iraq. While the new interim president was shaking hands with world leaders on Sea Island, Ga., The New York Times reported that the interim prime minister has been implicated by CIA operatives in sabotage bombings of Iraqi civilians during the early 1990s. The UN's premature celebration of this interim government and the "end of occupation" seems morally dubious at best. More seriously, as Human Rights Watch pointed out in a June 7 letter to the Security Council, the proclamation of the end of occupation tears a large hole in the ability to prosecute human rights violations in Iraq. Human Rights Watch argues that the international community must continue to recognize that the United States and Britain remain occupying powers, since not only will more than 140,000 troops remain under their command after June 30, but who knows what interpretation of the Geneva Convention they will be encouraged to follow. A statement recognizing the continuing military occupation would provide a more legitimate description of the impending event. Wthout it, human rights violations committed against Iraqis by these troops and their commanders falls into a legal vacuum. Last week's leak of a Justice Department memo arguing that torture is legitimate when approved by the president makes U.S. motives even more suspect. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's proclamation that the resolution is complete raises serious questions about the UN's ethical leadership. Regarding the Iraqi economy, the resolution seems seriously flawed. It provides for Iraqi control of resources and revenues from oil sales and gives control of the Development Fund for Iraq to the new government. It provides for continued international monitoring and auditing of Iraqi funds and expenditures and provides for an Iraqi-government designate as a voting member on the International Advisory and Monitoring Board. But would Iraq to be able to renegotiate or reject no-bid contracts already awarded to Halliburton and others for reconstruction? The UN Security Council gave far too much power to U.S. authorities to control Iraq's economy in Resolution 1483 last July. Will a new interim government made up largely of U.S. cronies, some of whom could benefit from these contracts, decide to scrap them? Even if the new government had the will to renegotiate contracts, would it do so while still dependent on U.S. forces for its security? And if U.S. companies such as Halliburton continue to overcharge Iraq for reconstruction projects, as has been documented already, how much money will be lost by the time an elected Iraqi government takes power? The United States is also pressuring foreign governments to forgive 90 percent of Iraq's debt, and the UN Resolution "requests creditors, institutions and donors to work as a priority on these matters." Yet there is little ethical or pragmatic rationale for giving priority to Iraq while large sections of Africa continue to suffer under crushing debt. And it is unclear who benefits over time if the interim government is the one to negotiate long-term debt relief. The UN's actions over the past several weeks have been well-intentioned, but have not provided reassurance that it can reign in its wild child, nor the crony-filled interim government that Washington has created. Rather, the UN has begun to look ethically weak, wringing its hands and hoping for the best. Unfortunately, the record suggests that it is foolish to simply hope for the best from the United States to ensure Iraqi economic security, self-sufficiency or human rights. For the UN to do so is also to shirk its responsibilities and risk its future legitimacy as a force for peace and the eradication of poverty and disease everywhere in the world. Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc. \| Article licensing and reprint options Enter a Category View List Site Search Go Quick Picks Photos of the Day Calendar Movies Cartoon Comics Columns Stocks Schools Scores Today's Newsday Video: Reagan Remembered Photos: Transit of Venus Special Section: 104th U.S. Open Photos: Yanks 10, Rockies 4