Wednesday, October 08, 2003
The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight
Bush & co have an odd view of international leadership according to which the quality of such leadership, especially in the case of the last standing superpower, is to be measured in inverse proportion to how few countries are persauded to follow it. Or is it just me?
This time, wasn't it the stated aim of this administration to engage the UN and member nations in an alliance, broader than that covered by the overused phrase, "coalition forces," to help with money and troops in the rebuilding of Iraq? Or was I misinformed?
According to the NYTimes, it isn't going well.
Hmm, what could have caused such stiff opposition, now that the administration was "courting" the UN? Here's a Reuters report published before the Times' bylined article.
The reasons the members of this administration have so little respect for the UN is that they have no idea how to get their way there. By definition, the problem can't be them, so, it must be....fill in the blank.
Cajole? Cajole, you say? Why kind of diplomat would do that? A self-important jerk like Joe Wilson? Amb. Negroponte is made of sterner stuff. He's the kind of ambassador who's more comfortable lying to congress on behalf of Central American thugs pretending to be national armies, but whose only purpose is the use of violence to limit the human rights of its citizens.
In the Reuters report, a foreign policy expert makes the point that the administration's approach to the UN has been "lukewarm" because there isn't sufficient counter pressure on or within congress, as yet, to put that $87 billion (gulp) supplemental at risk. If there were, the administration might have to rethink their approach.
This is not your cue to go off on how the rotten Democrats aren't being sufficiently oppositional. Becaue they are. And in as public a way as they can - floor speeches in the Senate presenting alternative funding devices - in the House, four or five member discussions during after session "Special Orders," questioning everything about our occupation of Iraq; last night Corzine was impressively eloquent and fierce. The Democrats have not been the least bit ready to rubber-stamp this appropriation. DeLay must sense some breaking even in his own ranks because he's pushing a scheduled vote for next week. The House Dems can inform citizens, but without grassroots help from voters taking the time to contact other house members, that's all they can do. Check out C-Span's Senate coverage during the day, if you have a job that allows you to do that, and the House coverage at night. You'll be proud you're a Democrat.
Get ready for renewed attacks by administration cohorts on the irrelevant, immoral UN, and especially on Kofi Annan. Look for a Tom Friedman column excoriating Annan for towing the French line, proclaiming, that for all their many mistakes, on this one the administratioin is right, and pointing out, without irony, that such a policy would mean turning over authority to their own hand-picked Council, exemplified by the much-compromised Chalabi, which will be viewed by Iraqis as US puppets. In case you're wondering how the Bush administration could embrace such a view without having to admit a colossal blunder, here's a hint from the Times' bylined piece.
No kidding, guys.
Who among us wouldn't agree? Too bad it took so long.
The Reuters report gives a slightly different perspective on Annan's position.
Although it is similar to proposals by the French and the Germans, I take it that the ceeding of sovereignty in Annan's view is fundamental to changing the perception among Iraqis and among Muslims around the world that what is going on in Iraq is an American occupation of the country. Whether the time period should be three months or five months, he isn't suggesting that such sovereignity should be vested solely in the Council. The details are negotiable; they always are among diplomats. Except in the Bush administration, whose chief emerging characteristic is its rigdity, which the President mistakes for strength.
After all, if Iraq is indeed the flypaper by which we have transferred there the frontline of the war on terror, why should the UN volunteer to be cannon fodder. Question to supporters of this occupation; when did Iraqis volunteer to become cannon fodder?
This time, wasn't it the stated aim of this administration to engage the UN and member nations in an alliance, broader than that covered by the overused phrase, "coalition forces," to help with money and troops in the rebuilding of Iraq? Or was I misinformed?
According to the NYTimes, it isn't going well.
The Bush administration has run into such stiff opposition at the United Nations Security Council to its plan for the future government of Iraq that it has pulled back from seeking a quick vote endorsing the proposal and may shelve it altogether, administration officials said Tuesday.
Two weeks after President Bush appealed at the United Nations for help in securing and reconstructing Iraq, administration officials said, his top aides will decide soon whether it is worth the effort to get a United Nations endorsement.
Originally, the administration said United Nations approval of American plans for the next phase of postwar Iraq would encourage other countries to contribute money or troops. Now the tone has shifted to one of living without such help, if necessary.
"We don't want to play this game for a long, long time," said a senior administration official, reflecting a certain exasperation with the Security Council. "This is as much a choice for the Council as it is for us. They can be multilateral and be part of it, or they can tell us to do it ourselves."
The new pessimism about winning United Nations support results from the cool reception accorded to the administration's most recent draft on Iraqi self-government, which was supposedly redrawn to take into account suggestions of Security Council members
Hmm, what could have caused such stiff opposition, now that the administration was "courting" the UN? Here's a Reuters report published before the Times' bylined article.
Despite divisions in the 15-member U.N. Security Council, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte on Tuesday ruled out making any substantial changes to the Bush administration's draft resolution on Iraq.
Consequently, council diplomats said the United States had to decide soon whether to drop the effort entirely or push for a split vote in the council that might limit its impact.
Easy passage of the resolution, aimed a broadening military and financial support, was assured until Secretary-General Kofi Annan last week turned down U.N. political participation unless Iraqi sovereignty was accelerated.
At a Security Council session on Monday, most members wanted the resolution to deal with some of Annan's suggestions but Negroponte virtually excluded this. (emphasis mine)
The reasons the members of this administration have so little respect for the UN is that they have no idea how to get their way there. By definition, the problem can't be them, so, it must be....fill in the blank.
Among the 15 council members, France, Russia, Germany, China and Syria were expected to abstain while only Britain, Spain and Bulgaria were sure votes, diplomats said.
The other six council members, Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, expressed misgivings but might support the resolution under U.S. cajoling, the envoys said.
Cajole? Cajole, you say? Why kind of diplomat would do that? A self-important jerk like Joe Wilson? Amb. Negroponte is made of sterner stuff. He's the kind of ambassador who's more comfortable lying to congress on behalf of Central American thugs pretending to be national armies, but whose only purpose is the use of violence to limit the human rights of its citizens.
In the Reuters report, a foreign policy expert makes the point that the administration's approach to the UN has been "lukewarm" because there isn't sufficient counter pressure on or within congress, as yet, to put that $87 billion (gulp) supplemental at risk. If there were, the administration might have to rethink their approach.
This is not your cue to go off on how the rotten Democrats aren't being sufficiently oppositional. Becaue they are. And in as public a way as they can - floor speeches in the Senate presenting alternative funding devices - in the House, four or five member discussions during after session "Special Orders," questioning everything about our occupation of Iraq; last night Corzine was impressively eloquent and fierce. The Democrats have not been the least bit ready to rubber-stamp this appropriation. DeLay must sense some breaking even in his own ranks because he's pushing a scheduled vote for next week. The House Dems can inform citizens, but without grassroots help from voters taking the time to contact other house members, that's all they can do. Check out C-Span's Senate coverage during the day, if you have a job that allows you to do that, and the House coverage at night. You'll be proud you're a Democrat.
Get ready for renewed attacks by administration cohorts on the irrelevant, immoral UN, and especially on Kofi Annan. Look for a Tom Friedman column excoriating Annan for towing the French line, proclaiming, that for all their many mistakes, on this one the administratioin is right, and pointing out, without irony, that such a policy would mean turning over authority to their own hand-picked Council, exemplified by the much-compromised Chalabi, which will be viewed by Iraqis as US puppets. In case you're wondering how the Bush administration could embrace such a view without having to admit a colossal blunder, here's a hint from the Times' bylined piece.
"We just have a basic difference with the secretary general on this," said a senior administration official. "He has the model of Afghanistan in mind. He wants us to use an old constitution, set up an interim government right away and move toward elections later on. But that's not the right model."
Indeed, many American officials say that if the United States tried to set up the existing Iraqi Governing Council's handpicked by the American-led occupation authority last summer � the attacks on American forces and Iraqi targets would only intensify. "The Governing Council is not seen as legitimate by the Iraqi people," said the administration official. "They're not ready to take power."
Among other things, various officials say, the Governing Council is dominated by former exile groups installed by the occupation but widely disliked by many Iraqis. (my emphasis)
No kidding, guys.
Who among us wouldn't agree? Too bad it took so long.
The Reuters report gives a slightly different perspective on Annan's position.
Although it is similar to proposals by the French and the Germans, I take it that the ceeding of sovereignty in Annan's view is fundamental to changing the perception among Iraqis and among Muslims around the world that what is going on in Iraq is an American occupation of the country. Whether the time period should be three months or five months, he isn't suggesting that such sovereignity should be vested solely in the Council. The details are negotiable; they always are among diplomats. Except in the Bush administration, whose chief emerging characteristic is its rigdity, which the President mistakes for strength.
After all, if Iraq is indeed the flypaper by which we have transferred there the frontline of the war on terror, why should the UN volunteer to be cannon fodder. Question to supporters of this occupation; when did Iraqis volunteer to become cannon fodder?
