Is there really any possibility that the US would allow the UN to be in charge of post-Hussein Iraq? Of course they want a do-gooder role for the UN so that the cost of humanitarian aid and reconstruction can be shifted from the destroyers to critics of the war. But isnt it clear that whatever type of administration it is, the design will be primarily a product of US input. If the UN does not go along with this it will again be "irrelevant". The complete contempt the US has for the UN should have been evident long ago. People like Pearle, Krauthammer, and Kristol simply express this contempt in an unambiguous fashion. But it will be interesting to see to what degree the US bothers with a UN resolution of the sort discussed here. Probably the US is content to let the UK push for this sort of thing on the ground that it will make Blair feel good if it passed. The Hegelian Bush knows that the US and UK do not need UN authorisation to rule postwar Iraq. Their military might gives them that right. How many legions does the UN have parphrasing someone or other.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
I think you are right there will not be a UN Administration of Iraq a la Kosovo and that it will largely be a U.S. Military Administration, dressed as civilian and with some multilateral and Iraqi elements. BUT, that does not mean either that the U.S. can just have the Military Government start selling oil.
There is a UN Sanctions ban on that oil (allowing exports only through the U.N. with certain provisions) and to lift the ban the U.S. HAS to have a new Security Council Resolution. Kofi Anon gave an opening bid: continue to give the future proceeds for the UN to administer. This will not be acceptable to the U.S. On the other hand, Chirac sharply said some (unspecified) terms will have to be met to get him to revise the rules on exports; Russia has said one will have to negotiate with them. Blair may try to repair some damage at home and in the EU by looking 'magnanimous' on this issue.
This may all degenerate into backroom commercial deals (no surprise there). But at this particular moment a lot of "public opinion" is in the streets and cares about the future of the Iraqi people and there are a few governments in the Security Council who want to look good in the eyes of that public - for the next few weeks.
I am not naively arguing that what can emerge from such a process will be good; I am just saying that if there is public pressure it can be made less bad in some extremely important ways. History has shown that the immediate post-war arrangements are decisive - often with unexpectedly tragic consequences. It is not a given that post-war Iraq will be reduced to the *long term* status of Panama or Afganistan, it is a sophisticated country with vast resources.
So, I think that giving up and failing to pay attention to this issue now will be a pity and will have important long term consequences. Fair(er) treatment for post-war Iraq is worth putting in front of people now.
Paul
