Iraq not your 'treasure chest', UN warns coalition (UN vultures eager to pick at the corpse)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | April 8 2003, 7:34 PM

[dead]

United Nations chiefs warned America and Britain today that Iraq is not a "treasure chest to be divvied up" after the war.

UN under-secretary general Shashi Tharoor said the coalition allies had no rights under international law to engage in any kind of reconstruction or creation of government without the express consent of the Security Council.

Secretary General Kofi Annan is expected to meet British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other European leaders this week to hear what they will agree to on post-conflict Iraq.

Annan will be in "listening mode" but will not be advertising the UN's services for tackling Iraq, something which could eventually be a "poisoned chalice", his right-hand man said.

But referring to the US and Britain, Mr Tharoor said this should not be a case of "people dividing up the spoils of a conquest that they undertook".

Blair has reiterated his desire to see the UN play a role in post-war Iraq, but it is not clear how great he and US President George Bush want that to be.

Blair said Iraq should ultimately be run by the Iraqi people themselves. However, there is speculation that the US and Britain want to oversee administration in Baghdad in the initial phase after the war.

Tharoor told the BBC Radio 4 Today program: "The only thing that matters ultimately is the right of the Iraqi people to determine their own future, to control their own natural resources and to determine their own destinies.

"What the UN can do is to play a part in bringing that about. But that is the ultimate goal and certainly the UN has no desire whatsoever to see Iraq as some sort of treasure chest to be divvied up."

Under the Geneva Conventions, the allies have the rights and responsibilities of any occupying power, including the responsibility to look after the territory, law and order, security and the welfare of the people on that territory.

"But that's about it," Tharoor said.

"They really have no rights under the Geneva Conventions to transform the society or the polity or to exploit its economic resources or anything of that sort.

"If they need to do more they need to come to the Security Council to get the backing of international law for anything more ambitious than merely being an occupying power in the military sense.

"Let's not forget that Iraq is already subject to a number of Security Council resolutions that remain valid."

Sanctions on Iraq had to be actively lifted, Tharoor added.

"Anything the UN does would require a Security Council mandate, and that includes involvement in reconstruction, involvement in any aspects of governance or civil administration."

On his tour of Europe this week, Annan would like to "get a sense from his point of view as to what he can expect to find himself and his organisation saddled with at the end of a Security Council process that hasn't yet begun", Tharoor said.

If the US went ahead with an interim administration without Security Council backing, there would be "real difficulty in the extent to which other countries would be prepared to recognise this group as anything other than an offshoot or a branch of the military occupation in Iraq".

He added: "The UN is not the kind of private corporation that needs to increase its market share. We have quite enough to do elsewhere in the world and on other issues.

"We are certainly not seeking this assignment which in many cases, I think many aspects, of it would certainly be like drinking from a poisoned chalice."

Tony Baldry, Conservative chairman of the International Development Select Committee, told Today: "At the very least we (the committee) think it's essential that humanitarian organisations are seen as operating under the mandate of the United Nations rather than as reporting to one of the combatants."

PA

[Servant of the Nine]

They are wrong.

To quote Ronald Reagan: "We stole it fair and square".

So9

[InspiredPath1]

Where to start?

If the US went ahead with an interim administration without Security Council backing, there would be "real difficulty in the extent to which other countries would be prepared to recognise this group as anything other than an offshoot or a branch of the military occupation in Iraq".

Assume that the U.S. and the Iraqi's hold a "constitutional convention" and then seek the consent of the people. Would other nations NOT ACCEPT a duly constituted government?

There is no better way for the U.N. to finally prove it's irrelevance than by opposing the will of the iraqi people.

My concern is that the U.N. and the U.S. State Department would prefer "an Arab-friendly" government. I would prefer a "pro-freedom" government. It, however, will not take long for the Saudi's to start to poison whatever system is put in place. Saudi "Wahabi" schools will pop up and preach anti-Americanism and anti-semitism, all with the consent of the State department.

Write or e-mail your congressmen. The State Department needs to hear from you through your representatives!

[EternalVigilance]

The State Department will not listen. But the White House might; if enough pressure is applied by the President's base supporters. And ultimately, though reluctantly, the State Department WILL do what the President says.

It is important to also remember that over the long haul, it is the U.S. Congress that holds the purse strings. We have a huge pool of friendly congresscritters on this particular issue already in the House of Representatives.

Congress and the White House; that is where our critical concerns MUST be heard!

[aruanan]

Iraq not your 'treasure chest', UN warns coalition

Should be "Iraq not your "treasure chest", coalition warns U.N.."

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Looks to me like the buzzards are hoping to create a sustainable income stream from the Iraqi oilfields.

Course they would only use it for good and moral purposes, right?

[alloysteel]

And the interesting thing is, that the coalition forces did NOT enter Iraq for the express purpose of simply taking control of the oil, and thereby enriching themselves. They did it for the simple justice of allowing the Iraqi people to participate in the flow of wealth into Iraq, a situation that did not prevail under Saddam Hussein. Will the post-war reconstruction of Iraq be funded by the sale of its petroleum? Of course, and properly managed, there will be sufficient revenue so that both the reconstruction, and the equitable distribution of resources will be made, preferably through a market economy. Will any benefits accrue to the coalition countries because of this revived economic activity in Iraq? Yes, if only that a more orderly structure is imposed upon the Middle East. What is there now, what has been there for centuries into the past, has always been a thorny problem. Now, there is opportunity to break into this entrenched structure, and give it a more human and enlightened aspect.

The changes in the Middle East are on a course to truly bring a new rebirth to the region. Someday the petroleum will run dry, or be supplanted by another energy source, and the thin veneer of civilization that now lies upon those lands will be stripped away. Something else must be there to take its place.

[JohnGaltSpeaking]

It is as if the UN is trying to play chicken with us on this issue. We didnt blink before the war, what makes them think that we will now? The sooner the UN fulfills its destiny as League of Nations, pt II the better.

[mewzilla]

Will someone please audit the books of the programs the UN has been running? That should shut them up for quite a while.

[Mamzelle]

Hm. Looks like we've got a treasure chest! O boy!

[Cyber Ninja]

Pouvoir vous dites, "VETO"! `(:-o

[RightOnline]

I know what I want to say about the U.N., but my better manners prevent it in such a public forum.

[STD]

How blatently CLINTONESQE! Just accuse the opposition with exactly what you yourself are coniving after.

"treasure chest to be divvied up"

This further indicates that the EU and UN remain unrepentant! Even in the face of this enormous victory and new evidence of Saddam's butchery.

Consider the EU cabal probably wants in there fast to hide and destroy WMD's of EU origin.

[hchutch]

Agreed.

Time to tell them where they can go. Their participation is on OUR terms, not theirs. They don't want to play by the rules WE lay out, they can go to hell.

[EternalVigilance]

I know what I want to say about the U.N., but my better manners prevent it in such a public forum.

True, but they may be appropriate; at least in somewhat restrained form; in a communication to our elected representatives. ;-)

[ZULU]

"United Nations chiefs warned America and Britain today that Iraq is not a "treasure chest to be divvied up" after the war. "

There was a problem. They had an opportunity to solve it. They didn't. We did. How we handle things afterwards is none of their business, unless they want to provide some street sweepers to clean up the Bagdad mess.

We should get an international coalition to help with the reconstructionof Iraq. But that coalition should consist of those nations who supported us, not the arrogant French, the stupid Germans, or a bunch of third world dictators, nor that anti-American phoney Koffi Anan.
Perhaps Egypt, Britain, the U.S., Spain, Poland, Ukaraine, Italy, Japan, and some other Islamic states with rational leaders should help reconstruct Iraq along moderate Islamic lines.


I agree. The U.N. should go to hell and take Koffi Anan, Nelson Mandela, the French, Germans and Belgians with them.

[Travis McGee]

Angry Lilliputians chasing Gulliver, waving tiny broken strings, demanding he get on his back again.

[Starrgaizr]

Projection. It takes UN jerks to see this first and foremost as a "treasure chest." Thieves dividing the loot. They are disgusting colonialists who have no clue that this is World War IV.

[rudypoot]

"Under the Geneva Conventions, the allies have the rights and responsibilities of any occupying power, including the responsibility to look after the territory, law and order, security and the welfare of the people on that territory.

The UN should be kept out because it's the coalition's responsibility to look out for the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Oh yeah, and France, "We will veto any resolution that authorizes the UN to do anything in the Iraq reconstruction." How do you like them apples???? Turn around is fair play and payback is a (explicative deleted).

[dead]

Very nice imagery!

[Bill Davis FR]

does it surprise you that the un thinks of iraq as a treasure chest...