Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blair plays down the UN's role in rebuilding Iraq
The Daily Telegraph ^ | March 27, 2003 | George Jones, Ben Brogan and Toby Harnden

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."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: blair; bush; iraq; irrelevant; saddam; uk; us; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: TLBSHOW
Good then I will post it as a seperate thread like I should of done last Sunday to alert freepers of the UN problem we have with Blair.

You will have a slight problem as that is old news, this is the latest. But if you want to make yourself look silly, go right ahead.

Ivan

61 posted on 03/26/2003 7:39:10 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: merrin
If they want to hand out food, let them. They are not smart enough to focus on two things at once, so when we let them do that, the U.N. folks should shut up and let us get on with the real important stuff.
62 posted on 03/26/2003 7:39:36 PM PST by rwfromkansas (Soli Deo Gloria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: agincourt1415
no kidding.....the war support over there is higher than here in America!

Got to love the Japanese.

See, now we just nuke all our enemies and they will become instant friends. j/k
63 posted on 03/26/2003 7:41:28 PM PST by rwfromkansas (Soli Deo Gloria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
If I didn't know better, I might suggest that the French could clean the latreens. Never mind.
64 posted on 03/26/2003 7:43:41 PM PST by AMNZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldylight
NO SOUP for the UN, LOL~
65 posted on 03/26/2003 8:04:37 PM PST by agincourt1415 (UN gets smaller, and smaller and smaller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: river rat
Right ON!
66 posted on 03/26/2003 8:06:09 PM PST by agincourt1415 (UN gets smaller, and smaller and smaller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
A politically clever move might be to avoid the UN entirely, but get the leading nations of the Coalition to run it - probably a far more international administration than the UN ever would be. Have Australian, British, American, Spanish, Polish and Danish administrators in the lead.

No France. No Germany. No Kofi. No problem.

67 posted on 03/26/2003 8:06:54 PM PST by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
The coalition is going to run Iraq and if we take Saddam alive, I can see the Tribunal, with a American, British, and Spainish Judge.

The Trial we last one week, LOL.

68 posted on 03/26/2003 8:10:58 PM PST by agincourt1415 (UN gets smaller, and smaller and smaller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I'm for Iraq getting put back together with the Coalition of the Willing, not the Coalition of the Obstructionists. What if it comes to light that France, Germany, Russia and China had much more than an obstructionist role but rather helped Saddam, hoping for our utter defeat? We can't let them have any role in undermining us in the Middle East any further than they are already. The Coalition of the Ostructionists has no interest in helping us remain the world's remaining superpower.
69 posted on 03/26/2003 8:25:48 PM PST by tinamina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Hear hear!
70 posted on 03/26/2003 9:53:46 PM PST by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson