Posted on 03/26/2003 5:13:53 PM PST by MadIvan
Tony Blair sought last night to avert a rift with President George W Bush by agreeing that the United Nations' role in post-war Iraq should be limited to humanitarian aid until America and Britain had made the country safe.
As he flew to Washington for a war summit with President Bush, the Prime Minister described as "premature" talk of the UN's role in running the country immediately after the conflict.
"We don't know what the situation is going to be when you get to the post-conflict situation," he said.
In an attempt to maintain the allies' unity after a series of setbacks during the first week of the conflict, Mr Blair played down differences between Britain and the US over the future of post-Saddam Iraq.
There is intense scepticism within the Bush administration about allowing the UN anything more than an involvement in humanitarian relief in Iraq. Mr Blair faced some private criticism for pressing the case for a further UN resolution before the conflict.
Officials have said that seeking a UN Security Council resolution to give the world body an executive role is a non-starter and Mr Blair's comments were a recognition of that sentiment.
Nile Gardiner, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation think tank, which is close to the White House, said: "The Bush administration really has no stomach for going back to the UN. Mr Blair is going a bridge too far by pressing the UN issue in post-war Iraq."
Earlier, Mr Blair faced questioning from MPs who feared Mr Bush would be unwilling to allow the UN to play a central part in rebuilding Iraq.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative leader, said it was clear that Mr Bush was "deeply sceptical" about any role for the UN.
Mr Blair assured MPs of his personal commitment to ensuring that the post-war administration in Iraq had the backing of the UN.
He said both he and Mr Bush had made clear "that any post-conflict Iraq administration has to be specifically accepted and endorsed by the United Nations".
But he acknowledged that the timing and details of any handover to a civilian administration had yet to be agreed.
Mr Blair stressed the importance of ensuring the safety of American and British soldiers before handing over to the UN.
"We will obviously have to discuss the details of how we make the handover to civil administration in Iraq because it is important both to protect our own troops and make sure, frankly, that they did not give their lives in vain," Mr Blair said.
It was important that a post-conflict Iraqi administration had the full endorsement of the UN because it would release funds and allow the international financial institutions to operate in a more effective way.
But a more immediate priority was to secure UN agreement to get Iraq's food for oil programme up and running again. He would have discussions with Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, in New York today on how money in the programme could be used for humanitarian relief.
On the flight to Washington yesterday, Mr Blair emphasised the importance of stabilising Iraq.
He said it could take some time to ensure that Iraq had the proper security and a government that was representative and cared about human rights: "The idea that you suddenly rush into the UN, that's what's causing the difficulty."
Mr Blair said the next couple of days would not determine what the post-conflict situation would be like. The immediate priority was to get the oil-for-food aid programme sorted out.
He said of his two-day talks with Mr Bush: "We will discuss the military situation but that's not the only purpose of the visit either. It's to go through in a reflective way all the various issues."
We are quite clear that any such administration has to be endorsed by the United Nations, it is important, and that is exactly what we said at the summit in the Azores. Now the details of that we will discuss with allies within the UN and with others.
Your disconnect is coming here - endorsed does NOT equal that the adminstration is UN run. In an ideal world we would not even be talking to the UN at all. But you know what, tough, this is the real world, and Blair has to be able to say he made the attempt to talk to the UN. He is also saying this in a context in which he knows that the French will shoot down anything that is proposed.
Your fears are misplaced and far too literal. Again, you are simply not subtle enough to grasp what is going on.
Ivan
This sounds great. I think Mr. Blair has made his choice about the future of the UK, the English channel may become wider than the Atlantic. I think Japan is ready to jump in to help also.
You're being too kind, Ivan. I believe that he's intentionally cutting and pasting to show things in the most negative way possible, just to stir up arguments.
Regards, Ivan
There is no "must" about it. Sorry, President Bush and the Prime Minister are not there to serve your whims; they are there to make measured, considered decisions based on the national interest.
Ivan
Ivan
Blair has little choice but to mention the UN thanks to the tensions in his own party - this is something you simply cannot deny, because it's true. The reality of the situation is that the UN is not going to be involved, at the very least due to the French veto. That you cannot deny because it is true. That still does not mean that the UN shouldn't cough up the food aid they have, which we have already paid for. This you cannot deny either, because it is true. Instead you would rather throw a tantrum about the rhetoric surrounding what will occur not meeting your expectations. Well, you must be sorely disappointed a lot of the time - we live in a real world where sometimes we have to acknowledge the whims of groups we'd rather ignore. Blair has to deal with the Left of his party, Bush has to deal with RINOs. You do what you can to pacify them and carry on.
Basic politics. For adults.
Ivan
Regards... Go UK!
Are you done now? I've indulged your tantrum for quite some time and patiently explained the situation; you may not like the truth, but it remains the truth nonetheless.
Ivan
Could be taken as an insult, don't you think.
I had the misfortune of listening to some of the PM questioning today, a lot of "tell the Israelis to get rid of those settlements and everything will be fine" nonsense.
The ragheads will not rest until their ability to fight has been neutralized, or there is no more Israel, and then after that, no more West.
A mild rebuke.
I had the misfortune of listening to some of the PM questioning today, a lot of "tell the Israelis to get rid of those settlements and everything will be fine" nonsense.
Sadly the Labour Party is not a home for those who support Israel. That's a perogative of the Conservative and Ulster Unionist parties.
Regards, Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.