Wednesday, April 25, 2007

US and UN: What's the Point?

Why anyone would enlist the assistance of the UN for any purpose is puzzling. But considering UN involvement in the Iraq war is totally absurd. Even in the Clinton Administration the UN bailed on Iraq as indicated below.
BBC News: UN withdraws staff from Iraq
As speculation grows over US military action against Iraq, virtually all UN personnel are leaving the country.

And again the UN bailed on Iraq in the Bush Administration:
Bush Gives Saddam 48 Hours: UN Withdraws from Iraq
NEW YORK, New York, March 17, 2003 (ENS) - Saying it does not mean an end of involvement of the United Nations in the Iraqi situation, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced today that he will withdraw UN staff from Iraq following the failure of efforts to achieve united action in the Security Council in removing weapons of mass destruction from the country.

So again, what's the point of involving the UN on matters related to the Iraq war? They offered no support leading up to the war and stood idly by while other UN members adhered to their own selfish interests rather than apply real pressure on Saddam to comply with inspections. Many blamed President Bush for ignoring the UN and forcing a unilateral decision to confront Saddam with military action. The same UN that did nothing in the previous 12 years continued their do nothing policies, protecting financial and political interests, then blamed President Bush for going it alone. Beyond a few reliable partners like Britain and Poland, most coalition partners fled when confronted.

After the departure of John Bolton we have Zalmay Khalilzad recently appointed to attend to business at the UN for the United States. The following report gives the appearance of pleading and raises some questions.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 18:54
Subject: /UN-Diplomacy/US/
New US envoy Khalilzad seeks greater UN role in Iraq

New York (dpa) - Drawing on his recent experience in Iraq, newly appointed US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Tuesday that governments should work with the United Nations to bring about "positive results" in the war-torn nation.

On his second day of work as the White House's envoy to the UN, Khalilzad sounded diplomatic and conciliatory in coaxing the UN to do more, particularly in Iraq, while pledging US cooperation.

"I have seen first hand that working with others, with the UN, that positive results can be achieved," Khalilzad told reporters. "With that perspective, I will engage, I will work hard, will listen and will be respectful, but will also speak for what we believe."

Here is a brief summary of his resume':
Zalmay Khalilzad:
1984 - US Dept of State, Council on Foreign Relations, worked for Paul Wolfowitz
1985 - Senior State Dept official during Reagan Administration (Senior after one year?)
1990 - Defense Department as Deputy Undersecretary for Policy Planning. (Bush 41)
1993 - Director of the Strategy, Doctrine, and Force Structure at the RAND Corporation
2001 - All over the Bush Administration

If Khalilzad is so entrenched in GOP, or more accurately, Reagan/Bush politics, why is the current President Bush placing him in this position with the UN? It is not like the current President Bush has not made a mistake or two in the Iraq War and this may simply be just one more piece of bad advice he has accepted. But regardless of the intent, on the surface it would appear there are only two reasons for this appointment. The simplest explanation would be a pure political move to give the appearance of 'making nice' at the UN as if to say we're doing all we can to achieve success in Iraq. Or the more troubling possibility that President George W. Bush has conceded defeat and is preparing for withdrawal from Iraq before the end of his term. Of course there is always the possibility that President Bush is more intelligent than most give him credit for and has a newly formed and sophisticated strategy for successfully completing the mission in Iraq of which this is one part. That might be overly optimistic.

Stanford Matthews


Blogger Beach Girl said...

Good post. Just looks like more appeasement to me. Perhaps, appeasement is all our leaders know or perhaps a good old guy like John Bolton just doesn't have the "sensitivity" that America's diplomats needed in days gone by - NOT.

Where, oh, where would we have been with the UN during WWII. What a car wreck! Everywhere those blue helmets go - even to their practicing "warfare" in the Southern US. Hmmm.

What is the point of us being in the UN except to fund their sorry ....

6:57 PM  
Blogger Dee said...

Since when has the US had to grovel on their bellies to anybody? Who died and made these UN clowns world dictators? This is a huge blow for those of us who know that the US is the last bastion of moral power left in this ever-darkening world. As beach girl says, it's just more appeasement, which is the beginning of the end.

8:23 PM  
Blogger miss lou said...

The UN did not exist in WWII. It was formed after that war in order to prevent further wars of aggression, like those perpetrated by Hitler, from taking place. The US was a primary founder of this organization. Contrary to the misconception that we fund the UN, the fact is all member nations pay dues based on the wealth of their country. For years now, the US has not met it's obligation to pay their dues in full; we are tens of thousands of dollars in arrears. The 'last bastion of moral power'?Our government allows the practice of extraordinary rendition and torture; we launched a war of aggression against Iraq based on false information. You say, "look what the terrorists do!" So, it is degrees of torture? I say, and I quote, "Let us not become the evil we deplore".

12:36 PM  
Blogger miss lou said...

"UN withdraws from Iraq". In th '90s, Sanctions were imposed on Iraq and for a decade the UN inspectors worked to locate WMD's. They found them and 96% of Sadaam's arsenal was destroyed. Now, let me ask you a question. If you were in a foreign country that was under imminent threat of attack by our massive US military machine, would you stay or would you leave?

12:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home