U.S. to NGOs: Iraq Reconstruction? We'll do it ourselves.

Wall St. Journal via Early Bird clipping service ^ | March 18, 2003 | Joe Katzman

[katman]

"The Bush plan, as detailed in more than 100 pages of confidential contract documents, would sideline United Nations development agencies and other multilateral organizations that have long directed reconstruction efforts in places such as Afghanistan and Kosovo. The plan also would leave big non-governmental organizations largely in the lurch: With more than $1.5 billion in Iraq work being offered to private U.S. companies under the plan, just $50 million is so far earmarked for a small number of groups such as CARE and Save the Children."

Looks like the U.N. payback plan is already underway. There's lots more in Trent's piece, which discusses the rationale behind this idea and what it means for various parties.

One thing - I sincerely hope that British, Spanish, Australian, Czech, Blugarian, Romanian firms et. al. are included here. If they're not, it's a gigantic screw-up.

Unlike the U.N. and its opportunistic hangers-on (who will probably do a lot of emergency aid and humanitarian work in the immediate aftermath), these countries are friends and stuck their necks out. Punish your enemies, yes, but reward your friends too by making them part of the long-term future benefits.

For instance, our daily "Winds of War" feature recently covered a story that indicates India may play a significant role in those efforts. A smart move all around (Ambassador Blackwill is doing a superb job there - not your typical State Dept. type at all), and one that should be extended.

-- Winds of Change.NET: Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory!

[Mark Felton]

India may be asked to replace France on the Security Council.

[Future Snake Eater]

Hey, good idea! Screw the UN, make them even MORE irrelevant, knock out a genocidal madman, and get the U.S. economy jumpstarted with massive contracting gigs. Bush is one smart mofo.

[wretchard]

Keeping the NGOs out of the funding pool is an act genius. About 90% of NGO funds are spent in administration or "advocacy", which is liberalspeak for propaganda. The money should go to Iraqi direct hires, rather than to expatriate NGO workers.

[talleyman]

Keeping the NGOs out of the funding pool is an act genius.

Brilliant! keep the fops of war out of it.

[Sabertooth]

pingo

[MississippiMan]

I had feared it wouldn't go down like this but man oh man I hope it does. 'Twould be so sweet for something on the global scale to be based on common sense exchanges. Of course, Annan and Chiraq are both already running their traps about what they'll be doing AFTER we and our real allies have taken 199% of the risk. Stick to your guns, Bush, and tell them to get lost.

MM

[jrlc]

Now let's stop paying the UN bill altogether. Bye Bye UN -- the sooner the better.

[anniegetyourgun]

Agreed. And it has the side benefit of curtailing the U.N. hell-bent mission to export abortion to all nations of the world.

[mondonico]

Excellent!!! UN NGOs are the chief opponents of US sovereignty, even more so than France and her cohorts.

[Shermy]

NGO's are just greedy schemes for the most part (not those that vaccinate children, etc.) And Iraq doesn't exactly need "reconstruction" - it's a sophisticated country with architects, road builders, scientists, etc. etc.

[Shermy]

NGO's are just greedy schemes for the most part (not those that vaccinate children, etc.) And Iraq doesn't exactly need "reconstruction" - it's a sophisticated country with architects, road builders, scientists, etc. etc.

[ez]

India may be asked to replace France on the Security Council.

The security counsel is doomed as long as one country can veto 14 others. IMHO, the five permanent members should have to have 3 of them vote to enact a veto.

[Cicero]

Legitimate charities can raise money on their own. The whole NGO business is merely a means of propagandizing and, in good liberal fashion, using other people's money for your own ideological purposes.

The thing that UN NGOs are best known for, in fact, is peddling abortion and population control. Who needs them?

[Mark Felton]

The UN should never become more than an arbitration board.

If two countries are in disagreement and seek a forum for debating and resolving the disagreement then the UN can serve a purpose.

But the UN should never have any true power at all. It should never be able to legislate, adjudicate or militarily enforce sanctions.

Just as corporations use arbitration boards now to avoid court battles, so then could the UN be used. But only if both parties choose to accept the rulings.

[Desecrated]

This is a bad idea considering how anti-Israeli the body is. The US has vetoed several of these despicable resolutions by ourselves. We could never bring the french or russians on board.

[Petronski]

India may be asked to replace France on the Security Council.

Source!?!

[lavaroise]

IMHO, the five permanent members should have to have 3 of them vote to enact a veto.

Whohoo, slowdown there, the UN is only an advisory body. It has no jurisdiction nor checks and balances nor legit representations per say amongst its members.

[truth_seeker]

"India may be asked to replace France on the Security Council."

Five is not a magic number. However I would favor Japan, if the number were to stay as five, and France get booted off.

The question arises : Why boot off France?

Because she caused the near destruction of the UN. Those who value the institution, will understand.

France went back on the agreement of res. 1441.

[dead]

I really hope this is true, but this is exactly the sort of thing Bush backs off of when the Ted Kennedy's and the NY Times of the world start squealing.

Stick to it, George. It's the right thing to do and a tasty way to do it.