Skip to comments.
Blair to press Bush over UN role (to shift power to a UN civil administration not US military )
FT ^
| 3/25/2003
| FT
Posted on 03/25/2003 4:51:52 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Blair to press Bush over UN role
Tony Blair, British prime minister, will on Wednesday hold talks with President George W. Bush at Camp David, hoping to persuade him that the United Nations should be "centrally involved" in administering Iraq once Saddam Hussein is defeated.
As coalition forces press towards Baghdad, Mr Blair will visit the US for a one-day summit which may determine not only the future of post-Saddam Iraq but the prospects of repairing relations between the US and other major European Union states once the war is over.
Mr Blair on Tuesday made it clear for the first time that he wants to persuade the Bush administration to shift power from a US military governor to a UN civil administration after the war ends. "It is common ground between us that the UN has got to be involved in post-conflict Iraq," Mr Blair told reporters.
The prime minister said later: "I can assure you that it is our desire to ensure that the UN . . . are centrally involved and that is in the interests of the international community and also the coalition forces."
After spending the first week of the war out of the limelight, Mr Bush has begun to take on the mantle of a wartime president, consoling the families of dead and captured US combatants and seeking to provide a voice of steadfast determination in the early days of heavy casualties.
"We cannot know the duration of this war," he said on Tuesday. "Yet we know its outcome; we will prevail. The Iraqi regime will be disarmed. The Iraqi regime will be ended. The Iraqi people will be free. And our world will be more secure and peaceful."
Despite Mr Blair's hopes, British officials privately admit that many in the US administration have no stomach left for a UN role beyond providing humanitarian aid. "There is a ferocious debate going on inside the administration about all this," said one British official. "Things may not be moving in the direction that we would wish. The prime minister must get Bush to buy into into this idea of a UN role and fight for it."
Even if Mr Bush backs a UN resolution giving it such a role, some UK officials believe questions could arise over whether France would back it, knowing that it legitimises the US-UK military occupation of Iraq.
The Blair/Bush summit will be their third bilateral meeting in the US in just six months - but Wednesday's meeting will be of particular significance. Mr Blair and Jack Straw, foreign secretary, will meet the leading members of Mr Bush's war council, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Colin Powell, secretary of state, and Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser.
The meeting is expected to discuss the course of the military campaign and the prospects for the Middle East peace process.
A central feature will be US plans to publish the "roadmap" setting out the path to the creation of a Palestinian state, which the US hopes will be the basis for a lasting peace with Israel. But at his press conference on Tuesday, Mr Blair cast the significance of Wednesday's meeting in wider terms, warning that the US and Europe would have to come together following the failure of the diplomatic process at the UN in the run-up to military action.
"There is, at the end of this, going to have to be a discussion and indeed a reckoning about the relations between America and Europe," he said. "There is no point in hiding it, this [the Iraq crisis] has thrown up a profound issue about the nature of the transatlantic alliance."
Mr Blair added: "It is not just the responsibility on me but on all of us, whether in the French or other European systems or in the USA, to find a way of putting it back together, because otherwise the conflicts in the world will be less susceptible of solution and the dangers the world faces will be exacerbated."
After seeing Mr Bush, Mr Blair will fly to New York where he will hold talks with Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary-general, about the need for the security council to agree a new oil-for-food programme for Iraq.
The US and British leaders also want to make progress on an international donor effort to fund post-war reconstruction, bringing in financial and technical contributions from Japan and the EU.
But while there is confidence that progress will be made on these fronts, it will be far harder to get the White House to agree a resolution guaranteeing a role for the UN after the Iraq war is over.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: blair; bush; iraq; postwariraq; un; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
1
posted on
03/25/2003 4:51:52 PM PST
by
TLBSHOW
To: TLBSHOW; MadIvan
Oh great. Blair thinks Chirac will be his pal because of this? Did the UN ever run Afghanistan?
2
posted on
03/25/2003 4:55:58 PM PST
by
Shermy
To: TLBSHOW
THE CRIMINALS AT THE UN
& THE AXIS OF WEASELS
The criminals are getting desperate. The criminals who had sweet deals with Saddam, selling him weapons and all kinds of nasty stuff in exchange for oil. France, Germany, Russia, China, and the UN. Saddam's partners in crime. His aiders and abettors. His co-conspirators. They are demanding that the US and UK step aside after the war in Iraq and let them take over. They are trying desperately to keep the truth of their corruption and wickedness from being revealed. This cannot be permitted. Let the truth be known! Let the world see them for what they are -- Saddam's Whores!
There is no way in hell that Bush can allow Annan, Chirac, or any of the other criminals who made dirty deals with Saddam, to have anything to do with post-war Iraq. All they want to do is cover everything up. All they want to do is get their hands on the WMD, hide their complicity, and then pass the WMD on to terrorists. They cannot be trusted. They cannot be allowed to take possession of the WMD. This cannot be stressed more strongly. The depth of their corruption knows no bounds, and they cannot be permitted to pervert and destroy everything we and our coalition are accomplishing in Iraq with our blood.
Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, and all the others who stood against the United States and Great Britain in the righteous cause of eliminating Saddam Hussein's evil and barbaric regime and liberating the people of Iraq, must not be allowed to have any participation in post-war Iraq. Their crimes must end with the fall of the regime. The coalition of the willing is disarming Iraq, and only the coalition of the willing must be responsible for what is done in post-war Iraq.
France, Germany, Russia, China,
and the UN=Saddam's Whores
Enough is enough. These criminals prohibited us from ridding the earth of Hussein back in 1991. And for the past twelve years, they have propped him up.
They sold him weapons and they sold him equipment.
They violated their own sanctions, and they smuggled contraband disguised as humanitarian aid.
They concocted the fiction of inspections not to disarm Hussein, but to give him cover and run interference for him while he turned his nation into a poison factory.
They NEVER had any intention of disarming him, and EVERY intention of using him as a proxy to wage war against the United States and Israel.
They signed on to Resolution 1441 never intending to actually enforce it, and when President George W. Bush forced their hand, they declared themselves as the bonafide enemies that they are. And now that the coalition of the willing led by President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair is doing the job that they refused to do, they are issuing threats and making demands. They insist that we wash our hands of the matter so, like the jackals they are, they can sink their teeth into the newly liberated Iraq not to help it in any way, but to cover their tracks, hide evidence of their crimes, take possession of the WMD, and distribute it to whomever they will.
This cannot stand. This cannot be allowed. The United Nations and the Axis of Weasels, who refused to fulfill their duty to humanity, have abrogated all rights to the future of liberated Iraq. They refused to do the heavy lifting, so they cannot be permitted to perpetrate this fraud. They have absolutely no right to what they claim. They had their chance, and they chose to slink away rather than lead. They cannot be allowed to slink their way back.
The United States of America and Great Britain have accepted the responsibilities of liberating Iraq and protecting the world from weapons of mass destruction, and they must not relinquish these responsibilities. Least of all to those who by their actions have revealed themselves to be unworthy of trust and unable to accept a position of leadership in this world. For their treachery, the traitor UN and the traitor nations must be rewarded with irrelevancy, for that is what they deserve.
3
posted on
03/25/2003 4:56:59 PM PST
by
laz17
(Socialism is the religion of the atheist.)
To: TLBSHOW
Ok Tony.. we'll talk about it... but no French... they can sit & rotate
To: TLBSHOW
Tony, your Army is doing good. Don't go and spoil it by bringing a bunch of losers from the UN into the equation. We can do a twenty times better job rebuilding Iraq, just as we are doing a twenty times better job of disarming Iraq, than the UN. If you really care about the future of Iraq, tell the UN to stay in the hole they have dug for themselves.
5
posted on
03/25/2003 4:57:07 PM PST
by
Russell Scott
(Iraqi soldier, is it really worth dying for the Butcher of Baghdad?)
To: TLBSHOW
From the Prime Minister's press conference 03/25/2003QUESTION:
Isn't your need to go to Washington and to New York, 5 days into this conflict, precisely underlining the reality that you do not have agreement with the administration about a role for the United Nations immediately after Iraq is captured if you like, that the United States are talking actively of an American civil administration in the initial months, a military commander in a civil administration but with no role at that central core for the United Nations, and that your view is completely different from that. That is the view coming out of the State Department and the Pentagon, but your view is in quite variance to that and that is why you need to go.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that is not the reason for going. In fact we had anticipated having this meeting some time ago, indeed before the conflict began. It is important not just to discuss the role of the UN in post-conflict Iraq, but other issues as well, the ones that I have described to you. But there is no doubt in my mind whatever, and you must realise that one of the benefits of the relationship that I have is that I am not having to pick up the newspapers and read what the State Department may be saying, or the Pentagon may be saying, I am actually talking to the President every day, so I know what the situation is. And the situation is that it is common ground between us that the UN has got to be involved in the post-conflict Iraq, it is important for the coalition forces, as I said a moment or two ago. Now we need to get the whole set of details about how that works and the timing of it that we need to get right, that is true, but I have got no doubt at all that we will.
6
posted on
03/25/2003 4:58:15 PM PST
by
Spruce
To: TLBSHOW
I think the UN should play a big role in Iraq, ask them to provide the money.
7
posted on
03/25/2003 4:58:52 PM PST
by
cynicom
To: TLBSHOW
The UN? Are they still around? I thought they broke up after GWB and Tony Blair started their side project, "Cowboy George and the Unilaterals". I have a plan for UN involvement: They can help wash the tanks while the real men are out fighting.
8
posted on
03/25/2003 4:59:18 PM PST
by
CaptainJustice
(Get RIGHT or get left.)
To: TLBSHOW
Uh, talk it over with Condoleeza first Tony. After that, let me know if you still think it's a good idea.
To: TLBSHOW
American blood has been shed and American treasure spent along with the other willing coalition members. Only members of the willing coalition should have any say in post war Iraq.
Of course if France, Germany and Russia want to make financial contributions, they will be welcomed, but that's as far as their involvement should go.
To: laz17
Why not have the "Coalition of the Willing" form a civil administration to oversea the reconstruction of Iraq?
To: Fpimentel
At the risk of a major flaming, I am in favor of turning most of the "nation rebuilding" over to someone other than the US military. I think we have a few more evil-doing dictators and their regimes that we might have to take out.
That said, I would, of course, reward the "coalition of the willing" nations with the most favorable contracts and give the French, et. al., some kind of menial, demeaning, mop-up duties that they so richly deserve. They would therefore be 'up close and personally' on the scene when the hard evidence of their treachery is revealed.
12
posted on
03/25/2003 5:09:49 PM PST
by
LisaFab
(Free Miguel Estrada!)
To: TLBSHOW
The UN is needed in Zimbabwe and North Korea. There are millions of people starving there presently!!
The UN is a JOKE!!!
13
posted on
03/25/2003 5:14:59 PM PST
by
blam
To: All
14
posted on
03/25/2003 5:18:40 PM PST
by
backhoe
("Time to kick the tires & light the fires-- Let's Roll!")
To: TLBSHOW
So the UN wont support us but after the incredible cost of war we will just turn it all over to them? They fail at everything they do. It would be the worst possible way to end this war.
15
posted on
03/25/2003 5:20:39 PM PST
by
PuNcH
To: LisaFab
All the civil administration the US and Iraq needs are in the US: high tech and business types who got laid-off eight months ago. There's more talent there than anywhere in the world. These guys and gals need the money, a lot of them are x-mil....they ain't afraid, and their loyalties generally lie with us....the good guys. And they'll get the opportunity to improve the world--for real. I mean, why pay the UN commieratflunkyenemiesoffreedomand religion to do a job for which we have the resources and talent?
Call it the Prosperity Corps.
16
posted on
03/25/2003 5:21:04 PM PST
by
dasboot
(Direct from the dirty, dark underbelly.)
To: TLBSHOW
I heard Colin Powell's press conference today (the one with the Spanish lady, didn't catch her name or rank). My ears perked up when he talked about the UN having a role in the post-war reconstruction. I listened very carefully, and I noticed that he was *extremely* specific in his language. Reading between the lines, he was saying, "the UN will be involved, but ON OUR TERMS".
France is about to learn that a security council veto can work both ways...
To: 429CJ
Take a look here. Blair becoming Chirac's poodle?
One English paper says "rightwingers" are trying to avoid the UN, mentioning that the French and Germans are concerned, but of course not delving into the reasons why.
Everyone I talk to of any stripe seems to have an opinion that France is in it for money and should not be revarded, but treated the same way they would have treated us. In fact, I'd tell Chirac that we are now a "grown-up" country, more "sophisticated" like you, and have learned your game.
Strangely, with all these Chirac and France stories, no one in the press is covering them. I wish they would.
18
posted on
03/25/2003 5:32:52 PM PST
by
Shermy
To: LisaFab
The UN is admministering to the refugee camps of Palestinians. This has been a humanitarian disaster as well as a vehicle for total corruption.
Send the UN to monitor events in Zimbabwe and let them proove they have what it takes.
To: dasboot
Good idea boot. As a was channel-surfing this afternoon, this CNN new blurb caught my eye:
Former Cheney company gets luctrative postwar contract.
Gee, I don't know why one of the most experienced oil contacting companies in the world should be involved in the rebuilding process...
20
posted on
03/25/2003 5:35:51 PM PST
by
LisaFab
(Free Miguel Estrada!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson