May 12, 2004
"CREDIBILITY", "UN" USED IN SAME SENTENCE
Hugh White, director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, believes the UN’s credibility will save Iraq:
Iraq needs the power of the US and the credibility of the UN. The US must sustain its huge commitment of resources to Iraq, but put the UN unambiguously in charge of the whole operation.
Let's be clear how radical this suggestion is. US forces would remain in Iraq, but come under UN command. The massive US aid effort would continue, but under UN control. The UN should take full responsibility for the management of Iraq's political transition, and America would surrender to the UN its say over Iraq's political and strategic future. Paul Bremer would be replaced by a UN-appointed High Commissioner, answerable to the Security Council.
Not mentioned at all by White is a certain $10 BILLION OIL-FOR-FOOD SCANDAL. Presumably the Australian Strategic Policy Institute doesn’t take into account such trifles when determining an organisation’s credibility. Hey, let’s replace Paul Bremer with Benon Sevan! Speaking of whom:
So now there's a third "hush" letter from the United Nations demanding that an Oil for Food Program contractor cease cooperation with Congressional investigators. Dated April 27, the note -- like earlier ones to inspection companies Saybolt and Cotecna -- is signed by another U.N. official "for Benon V. Sevan," the outgoing Iraq Program chief. In this case the recipient was an individual consultant whose name was blacked out by our Capitol Hill source.
The purpose of the first of these letters to surface, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard argued last week, was to facilitate evidence gathering by the U.N.-backed inquiry headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. This excuse didn't make a whole lot of sense. It's not as if the Oil for Food-related documents in question could be shared with either Congress or Mr. Volcker but not both. But this latest hush letter adds a new wrinkle, stating twice that the U.N. demands control of "documentation or information" (emphasis added). Translation: Shut up or we'll sue.
I don’t get it. According to Tim Dunlop’s UN friend, the joint is a total free-information zone:
She said the thing that most struck her about moving to the UN was that there was no such thing as a confidential report at the UN. Part of the philosophy of the place is that everyone can see everything and she said it took some getting used to just leave stuff on her desk and to not have a safe in her office for storing sensistive documents.
I wish Tim would tap this source again.
Posted by Tim Blair at May 12, 2004 05:13 AMUS forces would remain in Iraq, but come under UN command. The massive US aid effort would continue, but under UN control.
And the US would do this, why? If the UN wants to pass out aid and order soldiers around, it should do so with its own money and army.
Posted by: R C Dean at May 12, 2004 at 05:22 AMKofi must love this idea; the US pays the bills and sheds the blood, while the UN sits on its fat arse and takes all the credit.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 12, 2004 at 05:45 AMWell, I suppose I can conceive of ideas more calculated to push the American public completely away from the UN, but it would be hard. If George Bush is re-elected with a Republican Congress, I would guess that the UN should start thinking about US funding being held up or stopped completely, at least until the UN is more forthcoming about the Oil-for-Food scandal.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at May 12, 2004 at 06:27 AMNot just no, but FUCK no! Oh yeah, sure thing, you UN goobers, you can have operational control over our troops, and what the hell, we'll foot the bill. WTF? Did this idiot SMOKE the friggen oil-for-food money or something?
I swear to God, I'll march in the streets if anything like this ever happens. I'll heave bricks into my Congressman's window if he lets it happen. No way in hell do our troops take orders from these assholes.
What should be placed inside the irony quotes is "Hugh White," or for that matter, they should be called idiocy quotes. "The massive US aid effort would continue, but under UN control." Other than Maxine Waters, there isn't even a Democrat that would consider that proposition. Really, what planet is this guy from? Hisanus?
Posted by: Forbes at May 12, 2004 at 07:15 AMI see most everybody else had the same thoughts as I. After gasping out a passionate F-U, I immediately thought of the efficient looting that Kofi and Company could pull off if they had the Marines at their disposal.
Posted by: hbchrist at May 12, 2004 at 07:40 AMhbchrist, it's more likely that the Marines would slap Kofi into the brig under heavy guard. The Marines have high standards.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 12, 2004 at 08:13 AMDoesn't life nowadays just boggle the mind?
I mean, this UNscam scandal is a real, live conspiracy, perhaps the largest in international scope and history; and all the conspiracy nuts are diverted, trying to find some connection between President Bush and some lowly bullies in Baghdad.
Gee, maybe the UN would do as good a job as the one they did in Srebinica, Bosnia....oops, make that Rwanda...er...Congo, Sudan? Oh, never mind....
Posted by: Major John at May 12, 2004 at 02:39 PMThe chickenshits at the UN don't even want the job. At the first sign of trouble, they ran away from Iraq just like brave Sir Robin.
Posted by: Tom at May 12, 2004 at 09:49 PMReal Jeffs, I have no doubt in my mind that the USMC would put him in irons the millisecond they caught him up to no good. I was just imagining the unintended consequences of this insane idea should the Corps actually come under the control of the U.N. (and assuming they followed illegal orders, etc etc).
Posted by: hbchrist at May 14, 2004 at 07:19 AMReal Jeffs, I have no doubt in my mind that the USMC would put him in irons the millisecond they caught him up to no good. I was just imagining the unintended consequences of this insane idea should the Corps actually come under the control of the U.N. (and assuming they followed illegal orders, etc etc).
Posted by: hbchrist at May 14, 2004 at 07:19 AMYeah, that would be an insane policy, putting the USMC at the disposal of the UN. That wouldn't happen under Bush, but Kerry might think it a great idea, a real nuance!