David Warren: Lakhdar Brahimi (The U.N. selling us out in Iraq)

The Ottawa Citizen ^ | April 24, 2004 | David Warren

[quidnunc]

Iraq is hardly being returned to Saddam Hussein. He will be tried, and I should think, executed in due course. But the country IS now being returned to the cesspool of Middle East politics. The Bush administration, and more largely, the United States whose interests it represents, cannot afford to govern Iraq indefinitely. Nor are they capable, as the White House has begun to realize, of imposing a democratic order on Iraqi society, as an earlier America imposed democracy on Germany and Japan after World War II. Iraq was not defeated in war; only its hideous tyrant removed, and a very cursory effort made at de-Ba'athification. The Iraqi people must finally find their own way to grace.

Nevertheless, if any of them believed President Bush's fond promise to bring democracy, through Iraq, to the entire Middle East, they have already been betrayed. (I doubt, however, that many believed the rhetoric.) This is because the transition to "democracy" is now being brokered not by Paul Bremer and the U.S., but by Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian diplomat, and the United Nations.

As we know from Rwanda, Bosnia, and a dozen other political settlements it has brokered, the U.N. is incapable of facilitating anything except the odd vast massacre. It is an organization corrupt to its core, without power except for what its members agree to provide for it, and therefore under the direction of a kind of rotating conspiracy of the world's most cynical and posturing politicians.

-snip-

[kissmyconservativebutt]

Iraq was not defeated in war; only its hideous tyrant removed

Yeah, we should have 'defeated' them pretty harshly. We should be doing that right now in Falujah!

[quidnunc]

FYI

[elfman2]

Lakhdar Brahimi

Iraq is hardly being returned to Saddam Hussein. He will be tried, and I should think, executed in due course. But the country IS now being returned to the cesspool of Middle East politics. The Bush administration, and more largely, the United States whose interests it represents, cannot afford to govern Iraq indefinitely. Nor are they capable, as the White House has begun to realize, of imposing a democratic order on Iraqi society, as an earlier America imposed democracy on Germany and Japan after World War II. Iraq was not defeated in war; only its hideous tyrant removed, and a very cursory effort made at de-Ba'athification. The Iraqi people must finally find their own way to grace.

Nevertheless, if any of them believed President Bush's fond promise to bring democracy, through Iraq, to the entire Middle East, they have already been betrayed. (I doubt, however, that many believed the rhetoric.) This is because the transition to "democracy" is now being brokered not by Paul Bremer and the U.S., but by Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian diplomat, and the United Nations.

As we know from Rwanda, Bosnia, and a dozen other political settlements it has brokered, the U.N. is incapable of facilitating anything except the odd vast massacre. It is an organization corrupt to its core, without power except for what its members agree to provide for it, and therefore under the direction of a kind of rotating conspiracy of the world's most cynical and posturing politicians.

Mr. Brahimi is among the smoothest of them. As the envoy of the Arab League in October 1989, he conned the Lebanese Christian prime minister, Michel Aoun, into accepting the "temporary" Syrian occupation of his country. Mr. Brahimi was the author of the Taif Agreement, which then permanently legitimated this occupation of Lebanon, by a Syrian Ba'athist regime which remains among the most murderously evil that exists.

As U.N. envoy to Afghanistan in 1997-99, Mr. Brahimi allowed his "peace brokering" between Taliban and Northern Alliance to be used as a front for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to launch a successful surprise military thrust into Northern Alliance territory.

His reputation derives chiefly from credit he claimed in brokering the end of the old apartheid regime in South Africa. (We won't go there, today.)

In Iraq, Mr. Brahimi has already persuaded the Bush administration to disband, before the June 30th turnover to local rule, the provisional governing council which has been the most diversely representative ruling body in the Arab world. In the presence of its Kurdish members, he has persistently referred to his "brother Arabs", as if the Kurds did not exist. He has been instrumental in negotiating an American climbdown, to allow thousands of members of Saddam's military and bureaucracy to reclaim their old jobs, over Shia objections. I expect that Mr. Brahimi's plan for a new transitional government of "technocrats" -- already agreed in principle by the Bush administration -- will admit several of them back to very high positions.

On Wednesday, Mr. Brahimi polished his credentials as an Arab advancing Arab interests in an interview with the radio network, France Inter. The reader will recall that President Bush has argued that the lack of democracy, freedom, and human rights are at the root of the problems in the Arab world. In direct contradiction of this view, Mr. Brahimi had this to say:

"There is no doubt that the great poison in the region is the Israeli policy of domination and the suffering imposed on the Palestinians, as well as the perception by the body of the population in the region, and beyond, of the injustice of this policy and the equally unjust support of the United States for this policy."

Mr. Brahimi was speaking as an envoy of the United Nations. It is the organization that is revealed to have kept Saddam's regime in money through years in which it might have collapsed under the pressure of U.S.-led sanctions. For there is no remaining doubt that the U.N.'s "oil-for-food" programme became Saddam's principal source of hard cash, and that far from being used to feed and medically treat the country's suffering children and innocents, billions and billions were systematically diverted to building more palaces, acquiring new weapons, and to lining the pockets of a rogues' gallery of self-interested Russians, Frenchmen, Arab and leftist journalists, probable terrorist frontmen, and the U.N.'s own staff and connexions including, almost certainly, Kofi Annan's son. (Lists of the alleged recipients are now easily searchable through the Internet.)

It breaks my heart to write this, but it's the way of the world.
David Warren

© Ottawa Citizen

[elfman2]

Having this guy in charge is too big a price to pay for UN support.

[meenie]

Brahimi is serving the function of facilitating the United States abandonment of its objectives in Iraq. We need a scapegoat and the UN envoy serves that purpose well. The decision to go to the UN for help was made when the US realized that its objectives could not be realized.

The June thirty timeline and a scapegoat is necessary for the President to clear the decks for the fall election. It remains to be seen how the arrangement can be explained to aid his reelection. Civil war between the factions would have been a blessing compared to the present situation of uniting together against the occupation. Turning Iraq over to the UN will allow us to leave and save a slight amount of dignity.

[elfman2]

If this guy picks the interim government, he may indirectly have a lot of power in whatever negotiated solution is being attempted in Fallujia.

[WOSG]

"Brahimi is serving the function of facilitating the United States abandonment of its objectives in Iraq. We need a scapegoat and the UN envoy serves that purpose well. The decision to go to the UN for help was made when the US realized that its objectives could not be realized."

Wrong. Brahimi is a product of that internationalist cesspool that the Dems and our allies insist Bush cater to.
Bush has in deference to Blair and the Europeans deferred to the UN, who brought in this master diplomat, which means he's an olympic swimmer in the cesspool of Arab dictatorships. Brahimi is a knee-jerk sypophant to the worst Arab impulses and is already playing his terrible cards.

Still, he can only do so much damage because in the end, it is US forces determining security and Iraqi players determining the politics.

Going to the UN has nothing to do with abandoning our objectives and everything to do with creating the perception of what we are already doing, ie, trying to earnestly build democracy in Iraq. The irony is that Bremer and the US could do a better and more honest job than the UN and Brahimi.

Kerry has it 100% backwards. He would destroy our Iraq policy in order to internationalize it.

"The June thirty timeline and a scapegoat is necessary for the President to clear the decks for the fall election. It remains to be seen how the arrangement can be explained to aid his reelection. Civil war between the factions would have been a blessing compared to the present situation of uniting together against the occupation. Turning Iraq over to the UN will allow us to leave and save a slight amount of dignity."

It's funny how defeatist nonsense is so contagious.

[WOSG]

"Having this guy in charge is too big a price to pay for UN support."

I agree. It is lunacy. His proposals and inputs so far have done much to damage and nothing to help the situation.

We were better off if we listened to Sistani and done the elections he called for.

The more I read about this guy, the madder I get.

[WOSG]

"If this guy picks the interim government, he may indirectly have a lot of power in whatever negotiated solution is being attempted in Fallujia."

Brahimi has already criticized any further marine attacks in Fallujah. ie he is already carrying water for the 'resistance'.

[dalebert]

The UN should be kept out of Iraq. Iraqis don't even want it.

[elfman2]

"We were better off if we listened to Sistani and done the elections he called for. "

At least there would be some sense of loyalty to us by those empowered rather than to Brahimi.

My shaken trust in Bush is not improved by this.

[WOSG]

"My shaken trust in Bush is not improved by this."

The problem is that there is no power out there *against* the UN and its catastrophic designs. Perception trumps reality.

Bush is being chastised by Kerry for not doing the wrong thing, and now has gone 1/2 way in doing the wrong thing, which Kerry wont recognize and instead demand he do more of it.

Bizarre.

[elfman2]

"The problem is that there is no power out there *against* the UN and its catastrophic designs. "

I’ve recently thought that giving the UN more than it asked for would be a good approach.

Offer it a truly one world government, with standards for membership including democracy, separation of powers and liberty that are superior to our own. Add in legislative UN representation by GDP multiplied by those criteria.

I wonder how the third way proponents would both continue to push for more UN authority and argue against that… It would at the very least be amusing.

[WOSG]

The problem is that the UN is a corrupt and lying organization. Just what do "democracy, separation of powers and liberty" mean when liars who could make Clinton blush get a hold of them?

recall that China is "people's Republic of China".

The UN is a club of Governments, and sadly, most governments in the world are corrupt, venal, anti-freedom, and for the destruction of property, decency and morals.

The UN is the latest example of misplaced idealism from the Socialist movement that used to hold hope for 'detente' and before that for Josep Stalin himself.

Recall that traitor Alger Hiss, the commie spy, was the state dept functionary who pushed and set up the UN.

Yes, the UN could be reformed. I think a bold, confident G W Bush could be up to the task of forcing the issue, if he wins in Iraq on our terms. Great idea: UN votes only for representative govts, based on contribution to UN, not population or '1 govt, 1 vote. demand an end to corruption. fire the incompetents and pro-dictatorship ones. insist the UN demand elections in zimbabwe, cuba, china, NK, Syria, etc. The is no reason for Brahimi to be in *IRAQ*, he should be in SAUDI ARABIA, YEMEN, IRAN, AND SYRIA! Set up a plan for jan 2005 open elections in all those countries!


Yes, we could press so many buttons the "UN lovers" would be twisted in a pretzel. But we need the confidence that clear victory wins, and our victory is being stolen as we speak by the very forces that want us to fail - our skeptical 'allies' who give us great 'advice' to go to the UN...

But that is the way wars against terrorists go. The terrorist push our buttons, the terrorist enablers make it look bad, the Bush admin bends to events, and the bad guys win a bit more space thanks to 'allies' that let terrorist enablers like Brahimi make decisions. Sigh.

[elfman2]

Why not start it here? Invite participation from some Cato fan site, even Democrats (not the DU).

Start a charter for a competitor to the UN. Enlist our members to write a Jeffersonian international constitution that all participating countries would have to submit to. Find an articulate member to go on CNN etc…. as a proponent of real international law and real human rights. Watch the left argue against it, exposing the real disagreement. It would be fun.

If it ends there, call it a day, if it catches in, call it a catalyst.

[goldstategop]

The Bush Administration wants to quietly cut our losses in Iraq. Our UN confreres will set up an anti-American regime but hey its not like the Iraqis wanted the one we set up a year ago with such fanfare, to succeed in the first place. Its an admission that no nation-building project can succeed if the local people don't want it to. All we should be concerned with is ensuring no future Iraqi government acquires weapons of mass destruction again to threaten us or their neighbors. Of course it would be wonderful if Iraq could be a democracy but there's scant chance one will take root any time soon. There's only so much we can do and the UN taking a role there can hardly make matters worse now that we're washing our hands of the situation. Its time to let the Iraqis be Iraqis.

[maxwellp]

The U.N. should just be closed down. It's completely useless and corrupt organization and should never be allowed again into Iraq. As for a solution in Iraq - well I just don't know. As an American it's difficult to understand so many different religious factions dominating a country. America got rid of Saddam and up pops another lunatic - Sadr. Ultimately, Iraq's future rests with the Iraqi people and I do not think they have the fierceness of our American forefathers to fight for freedom. I don't want our American military there for years to come. I hope on June 30th utter chaos doesn't erupt. What to do?

[elfman2]

I regretfully agree that we've settled for a pacified Iraq rather than a free Islamic nation.

Too bad we can’t hold it up as a model for the ME, but at least we'll not have to worry about WMD development there for many years.

BTW, Nice area to live. I know it fairly well. (Living in Key Largo now.)

[Dark Glasses and Corncob Pipe]

"Turning Iraq over to the UN will allow us to leave and save a slight amount of dignity."

The ONLY justification for stopping short of our goals in Iraq, and extricating ourselves, IMO, is that it is now time to be directing our attention chiefly toward Iran and Syria.