Posted on 04/08/2003 6:45:38 AM PDT by 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
"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.
What a load of crap. They are absolutely salivating over the prospect of huge revenue generating “oil for food” (more accurately described as “oil for Kofi”) programs.
They would have let the people of Iraq live another forty years under brutal totalitarianism, as long as Kofi and his cronies maintained growing bank accounts.
Priceless.
Talk to the hand.
The same people that allowed genocide in several countries and then put Syria in charge of human rights, if memory serves. Oh, yeah, they should have a role--I suggest cleaning latrines.
The UN could play a major role in picking through garbage dumps for recycling material and in physically scouring the sewer systems of Baghdad and Basra with UN personal using wire brushes.
He, instead, should be in "getting out of the way" mode.
"About it"? Doesn't that pretty much cover all bases?
The UN is not the kind of private corporation that needs to increase its market share.
Perhaps not. But the problem is that the U.N. as a distinct entity doesn't exist. It's the member states that actually matter, so the question is whether those member states or the coalition would make better trustees for the Iraqi people.
My guess is that the countries who were willing to sacrifice lives and expend their own funds to liberate the Iraqi people probably are the ones to be trusted.
It's a good thing for the UN that it is not. If it had been, it would have failed and gone bankrupt a long time ago.
Nobody's buying the crap you're selling, Tharoor. Like all good socialist enterprises you rely on government (the governments of the UN membership) to force others to buy your crap.
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.