UN agrees to expanded role in rebuilding Iraq
The Bush administration famously gave the UN a final opportunity to prove it's relevance before ignoring it and invading Iraq without a second UN resolution. To the neo-Cons the UN stood for all that was wrong with international law and global co-operation. They were the new empire and they didn't need old institutions telling them what they could and couldn't do. Richard Perle could hardly hide his glee. In an article entitled, Thank God for the Death of the UN, he boasted:
Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat.It was typical of the mixture of ignorance and arrogance which drove their philosophy that Perle should have placed the United Nations building next to the Hudson rather than the East River. Facts never meant a lot to these people, reality was always what they stated it to be.
What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.
John Bolton went even further than Perle, dismissing the whole notion of international law altogether.
Bolton has publicly dismissed international law and treaties, since they may inhibit American freedom of action. In 1997, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Treaties are ‘law’ only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operations, treaties are simply ‘political’ obligations.”He reserved special hatred for the UN:
"There's no such thing as the United Nations," John Bolton declared in 1994. ''If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.''There is, therefore, a delicious irony in noting that the same Bush administration that spawned these lunatics has now gone to the UN and asked for help. After all their disparaging comments, after all their claims regarding it's irrelevance, things have got so bad in Iraq that they have been forced to ask the UN to assist them.
The hope is that the UN can act as a conciliatory agent in Iraq bringing together the warring factions. However, there must surely be bad feelings in Iraq towards the UN, as the US and UK used this organisation for twelve years to implement a series of brutal sanctions against the Iraqi people in the hope of bringing down Saddam's regime - sanctions which resulted in the deaths of half a million Iraqi babies in a policy that came to be described as "infanticide masquerading as policy."The resolution, sponsored jointly by the US and Britain, marks an important turning point - at the very least, symbolically - for the UN in Iraq. The Bush administration, in the period before the 2003 invasion and in the immediate aftermath, expressed confidence it could run the country without UN help.
The neo-conservatives who dominated US policy at the time were openly hostile towards the UN. Washington's decision to call for UN help underlines the failure of the US to quell the violence or persuade Iraq's neighbours to play a positive role in the country.
The US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, who was previously ambassador to Baghdad, insisted the vote represented "an important new phase in the UN's role in Iraq". He hoped it would be "a springboard to greater international support for Iraq's government and people".
So the UN will certainly have their work cut out for them.
The very fact that the Bush administration are now asking the UN to assist them is the final proof that they have simply lost their way in Iraq.The UN, like the US, will find its scope for action severely curtailed by the weakness of the Iraqi government and the frequent risk of attack. The resolution authorises the UN mission in Baghdad to "advise, support and assist the government and people of Iraq on advancing their inclusive, political dialogue and national reconciliation".
This means trying to engineer a deal between Iraq's Shia and Sunni Muslims - an ambitious goal - as well as tackling the humanitarian crisis and organising more mundane but still awkward tasks such as carrying out a census. The new secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, is regarded by Washington as more amenable to helping the US than his predecessor, Kofi Annan, who opposed the war.
It is also extremely heartening to those of us who, four years ago, had to listen to right wing loons lamenting the uselessness of the UN and braying - Richard Perle style - about it's imminent death.
Four years later what we are actually witnessing is the death of the neo-Cons as a viable political movement. For when you have people like David Brooks lining up to state that the Republican party hates Bush then the writing is surely on the wall for the failed neo-Con philosophy.
Even it's own proponents have now turned against it, anxious to put some distance between themselves and the Bush administration's neo-Con venture:
In an article called "Neo Culpa", Richard Perle declared that had he known how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'."About the only two proponents of this philosophy still standing are Bush and Cheney, and Bush was never a real believer, he simply signed up because neo-conservatism fitted into his Manichean, black and white view of the world.
Kenneth Adelman said: "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era.
"Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."
Donald Rumsfeld "fooled me", he said.
He declared of neo-conservatism after Iraq: "It's not going to sell."
But anyway, there they sit, their popularity around their ankles like a whore's knickers, asking the UN to bail them out.
It's the final indignity for their failed philosophy, for their insanely vainglorious belief that the US didn't need the rest of the planet and that it would rule alone and fuck what anyone else thought.
They are now asking the organisation that they disparaged to bail them out.
It's the final humiliation. I can hardly hide my fucking glee.
Click title for full article.
8 comments:
There is, therefore, a delicious irony in noting that the same Bush administration that spawned these lunatics has now gone to the UN and asked for help. After all their disparaging comments, after all their claims regarding it's irrelevance, things have got so bad in Iraq that they have been forced to ask the UN to assist them.
Let me rephrase this to state exactly what you are saying: "After the claims of Perle and Bolton regarding the UN's irrelevance, things have gotten so bad in Iraq that the US has been forced to ask the UN to assist them".
Yeah, doesn't sound as good when you highlight the tenuous linkage that you tried to make.
sanctions which resulted in the deaths of half a million Iraqi babies in a policy that came to be described as "infanticide masquerading as policy."
You bought that propaganda hook, line, and sinker, didn't you. Riddle me this one... If the Iraqi regime was so strapped, how did they manage to build all those lavish mosques and presidential compounds during the sanction years? And given that food and humanitarian aid was allowed during the sanctions, how could the Iraqi regime not acquire what was needed to take care of its people while still managing to acquire new weapons?
The very fact that the Bush administration are now asking the UN to assist them is the final proof that they have simply lost their way in Iraq.
Wow, you seem to have some issues with causality. Not much experience in formal logic, logical proofs, and such, eh?
Let me rephrase this to state exactly what you are saying: "After the claims of Perle and Bolton regarding the UN's irrelevance, things have gotten so bad in Iraq that the US has been forced to ask the UN to assist them".
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Those dreadful Empire building blowhards have had to eat their words.
You bought that propaganda hook, line, and sinker, didn't you. Riddle me this one... If the Iraqi regime was so strapped, how did they manage to build all those lavish mosques and presidential compounds during the sanction years? And given that food and humanitarian aid was allowed during the sanctions, how could the Iraqi regime not acquire what was needed to take care of its people while still managing to acquire new weapons?
The children didn't die from hunger, Jason. They died because the US and UK banned certain medicines which we decided might be "dual use". So they were dying from perfectly treatable diseases. It's just that we wouldn't allow them to be sold the drugs that they needed in order to do so.
It's just that we wouldn't allow them to be sold the drugs that they needed in order to do so.
False again.
Myth: The Iraqi people do not have an adequate supply of medicine because of sanctions.
Fact: Sanctions have never prohibited or limited the import of medicine. In fact, the UN has urged the Iraqi regime to order more basic medicines, but Baghdad has refused. Saddam has been criticized by the UN for intentionally hoarding medicines in warehouses in government-controlled Iraq instead of distributing it to civilians.
Myth: The oil-for-food program has failed to meet basic needs of the Iraqi people and it never will.
Fact: Oil-for-food has made significant improvements in the lives of the Iraqis and will continue to do so. The increase in revenue under the oil-for-food program from $4 billion in the first year of the program to a projected $20.4 billion this year means there is a tremendous amount of money available for humanitarian goods. The government of Iraq must choose to make that happen. In northern Iraq, where the UN controls the humanitarian relief programs, child mortality rates are lower than they were before the Gulf War. However, in southern and central Iraq, where the Iraqi Government controls the oil-for-food program, mortality rates have doubled.
Myth: Iraq does not have the resources to support the Iraqi people.
Fact: Baghdad has significant resources available to alleviate much of Iraq's humanitarian suffering, but Saddam does not spend the money on the Iraqi people. The oil-for-food program allows Iraq to sell as much oil as required to meet humanitarian needs. From December 1999 to June 2000, Iraq earned approximately $8.3 billion from oil sales.
Myth: There is little food available in Iraq.
Fact: More than 13 million metric tons of foodstuffs have arrived in Iraq since the first deliveries of the oil-for-food program began in 1997. In fact, Baghdad has been caught exporting dates, corn, and grain outside of Iraq while claiming the Iraqi people are starving.
You have chosen to take the word of the US State Department, the people who were behind the sanctions, as proof that the US was not to blame for half a million Iraqi children's deaths. Does it never occur to you that it might be in their best interests to lie?
I prefer to trust Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, who resigned after 34 years with the UN in September 1998 because of his outrage over what was being done.
On medicines:
The Sanctions Committee weighed in and they would look at a package of contracts, maybe ten items, and they would deliberately approve nine but block the tenth, knowing full well that without the tenth item the other nine were of no use. Those nine then go ahead – they’re ordered, they arrive - and are stored in warehouses; so naturally the warehouses have stores that cannot in fact be used because they’re waiting for other components that are blocked by the sanctions committee.”
What was the motive behind blocking the one item out of ten?
“Because Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years – it’s a deliberate ploy. For the British Government to say that the quantities involved for vaccinating kids are going to produce weapons of mass destruction, this is just nonsense. That’s why I’ve been using the word ‘genocide’, because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I’m afraid I have no other view at this late stage.”
Indeed, Madeleine Albright not only conceded that half a million Iraqi babies had died, but she stated that it was "worth it".
She later attempted to withdraw this, claiming that it was Saddam's failure to comply with the UN which resulted in the deaths. However, by stating that Saddam's compliance would have prevented the deaths is, in itself, an inherent admission that the sanctions DID cause the deaths of half a million children.
You have chosen to take the word of the UN, the organization responsible for widespread fraud and mismanagement in the very program we are discussing
The State Dept made very simple claims about the UN oil-for-food program which are easily verifiable and would be very easy to refute point-by-point if there were anything to refute.
I have refuted it. I have given you the testimony of a man who resigned after 34 years with the UN such was his disgust at what was happening.
I have also quoted Madeleine Albright. Is there any reason why Albright would have lied?
The fact that the sanctions caused casualties is confirmed by UNICEF who put the figure at 500,000.
The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture.
There is copious evidence that the sanctions resulted in children's deaths. You simply choose not to see it.
Yet you have not explained why the Iraqis were not able to take care of their people while at the same time sanctions busting was rampant and the Iraqi regime had plenty of cash. Explain how given that they could get in any number of weapons and other items that were illegal according to the sanctions, and given that they had no cash shortage, how was it that the Iraqi government could not take care of its people by assuring they had adequate supplies of food and medicines, both of which were allowed by the sanctions? It would seem that the only way this would have been possible was with the Iraqi government willfully not distributing necessities to its people.
You appear to be deliberately missing the point. Cash and food had nothing to do with this. It was to do with a lack of medicines and a lack of chlorine to ensure clean water. As Denis Halliday pointed out, we would allow nine medicines but not the tenth, without which the other nine wouldn't work.
We said chlorine was possibly "dual use" so we banned it. We accused them of using vaccines to manufacture weapons so we banned them. As I've already shown, Madelaine Albright has already admitted that the deaths were caused by the sanctions.
Members of the UN team resigned over this, calling the policy "infanticide". You don't give up your career easily, so they were obviously seriously disturbed by our actions and felt resigning was the only way to make the world aware of the damage our policies were unleashing.
Post a Comment