U.S. says will not cede control of Iraq to U.N.

Reuters | 3/26/03

[kattracks]

U.S. says will not cede control of Iraq to U.N.

WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) - The United States will not cede control of Iraq to the United Nations if and when it overthrows President Saddam Hussein, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday.

"We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future," Powell told a House of Representatives subcommittee.

"We would not support ... essentially handing everything over to the U.N. for someone designated by the U.N. to suddenly become in charge of this whole operation," he added.

"We have picked on a greater obligation -- to make sure there is a functioning Iraqi government that is supported by the coalition, the center of gravity remaining with the coalition, military and civilian," he said.

Powell said the United Nations should, however, have a role in a post-Saddam Iraq, if only because it makes it easier for other countries to contribute to reconstruction costs.

"If we ask these nations to go get funds from their parliaments, it makes it a lot easier for them to get those funds and contribute those funds to the reconstruction effort ... if it has an international standing," he said.

The coalition is the Bush administration's term for the United States, Britain and the other minor contributors to the invasion of Iraq they launched last week.

The question of the U.N. role has come to the fore in the last few days because of debates in New York on the terms for releasing Iraqi oil money to pay for humanitarian relief.

The problem is expected to loom even larger if the United States takes control in Baghdad and then starts managing the Iraqi oil industry or seeking funds for reconstruction.

Washington will argue that as the victor it has the right to manage the transition to an Iraqi civilian government. Its opponents will say that the invasion was illegal and that the United Nations cannot endorse it retroactively.

Powell was speaking to the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

03/26/03 17:17 ET

[dead]

France weeps.

[JohnHuang2]

Ping...

[I still care]

Excellent. They obviously have thought from the beginning that the Iraqi citizen didn't deserve any better than Saddam, they can't be trusted in the future to fill their needs. And they certainly don't deserve it.

France, Russia, and Germany must be spitting teeth over this speech.

[mondonico]

Excellent. We should all send Annan, Chirac, Schroeder and Putin the story of the Little Red Hen (moral of the story: those who don't help make dinner, don't eat dinner).

[Steel Wolf]

Weasels of the world, take note: That U.N. veto works both ways.

France and Russia must be in a panic about the loss of their oil and defense contracts with Iraq, to say nothing of their impending defeat at the U.N. security council.

[ambrose]

The first thing we have to do once Baghdad is taken is get a mob of Sheeites to sack the French embassy.

[w1andsodidwe]

The coalition is the Bush administration's term for the United States, Britain and the other minor contributors to the invasion of Iraq they launched last week.

I guess sending troops like denmark, netherland, poland, australia, etc did is considered minor to Reuters.

[RonF]

Why not turn Iraq over to the U.N. to set up their new government? Look at the great job most of it's members are doing in their own homelands! Look at the great job they're doing in what used to be Yugoslavia, which is an excellent analogy to Iraq in that both have mutually antagonistic ethnic groups that were kept from each other's throats by a despot. Or the great job they're doing in < African_Nation_here >.

< /sarcasm >

[TADSLOS]

DIPLOMATIC RESPONSE:

"We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future," Powell told a House of Representatives subcommittee.

"We would not support ... essentially handing everything over to the U.N. for someone designated by the U.N. to suddenly become in charge of this whole operation," he added.

UNDIPLOMATIC TRANSLATION: Shove it where the sun don't shine.

[Howlin]

UH OH......somebody's going to be upset! :-)

[finnman69]

ROFL.

US to UN

NUTS

[Enterprise]

I don't think France weeps. I think something "le pew" came out of a lower orifice when they heard this.

[Howlin]

France and Russia must be in a panic about the loss of their oil and defense contracts with Iraq,

And I am deliriously happy about that. And I am sure I am not alone!

[RonF]

Washington will argue that as the victor it has the right to manage the transition to an Iraqi civilian government. Its opponents will say that the invasion was illegal and that the United Nations cannot endorse it retroactively.

Think of all the despots who have overthrown their country's governments and then been recognized by the U.N.

[Reb Raider]

I am hoping this stands. I am worried the British won't go along with this.

[white trash redneck]

This sounds great. I hope that we don't fold in the clutch.

[ambrose]

I saw we let the French patrol some remote landlocked mountainous villages (with no oil or minerals) that are equally divided between Sunnis and Shiites.

[Mustang]

"...EF'OFF UN...STRONG MESSAGE TO FOLLOW..."

[Enterprise]

"We have picked on a greater obligation -- to make sure there is a functioning Iraqi government that is supported by the coalition, the center of gravity remaining with the coalition, military and civilian,"

This makes perfect sense. After all, the United Nations runs the United Nations, and it is completely imcompetent. Why let them do the same to Iraq? In God's name, why are we losing our men and women to death and capture, only to turn Iraq over to the stinkers at the U.N.???