Meeting of the-countries-that-do-business-with-the-Axis-of-Evil

[redman]

You gotta love these clowns. Even the Italians figured out which side to be on right from the start, but these idiots have been tripping over themselves from Day 1 trying to see how they can get as much money as possible out of this. Is there any mystery as to their motives, and any limit to the gall they've had in lecturing us about right and wrong in this conflict?

From Yahoo! News:

Chirac to Join Russia-Germany Talks on Iraq

42 minutes ago Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Ron Popeski

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Leaders of the main countries opposing the U.S.-led military action against Baghdad will meet this weekend and are expected to press for a major role for the United Nations (news - web sites) in a postwar Iraq (news - web sites).

A Kremlin statement said French President Jacques Chirac would join Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at long scheduled talks in Russia's second city of St Petersburg on Friday and Saturday.

The statement on the meeting in Putin's home town made no mention of any agenda. But it is certain to be topped by discussion on how to proceed with reconstruction in Iraq after the U.S.-led war to remove President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

All three states have adopted a more conciliatory approach as U.S. and British troops advance through Iraq, but say they want the U.N. to be the principal body overseeing reconstruction efforts.

President Bush (news - web sites) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said on Tuesday the United Nations should have a "vital role."

But it was unclear how much power they believed the U.N. should have outside humanitarian matters.

A United Nations spokesman in New York denied initial reports, both by the Kremlin and the U.N. office in Moscow, that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) would join the talks on Saturday.

France, Germany and Russia formed the backbone of opposition to Washington's hawkish stance on Iraq, calling instead for diplomatic efforts through the United Nations to ensure the country was free of alleged weapons of mass destruction.

CENTRAL U.N. ROLE

Chirac acknowledged on Tuesday that Iraq had to pass through a "necessary phase of establishing security," but said it would then be up to the U.N. to spearhead efforts to rebuild the country.

"We are no longer in an era where one or two countries can control the fate of another country," he told a Paris news conference. "Therefore, the political, economic, humanitarian and administrative reconstruction of Iraq is a matter for the United Nations and for it alone."

Schroeder was equally forthright last week, saying the U.N. "must play the central role as far as the future of Iraq and the new political order is concerned."

Putin, vociferous in his initial denunciations over Washington's military action, has since said a U.S. defeat is not in Russian interests.

The Kremlin said at the weekend Putin had stressed in a telephone conversation with Bush "the importance of pursuing an intense political dialogue" to uphold Russia's new alliance with Washington, rooted in support for the U.S. anti-terror campaign.

But he has also said the Iraqi issue should remain for the U.N. to decide. Other Russian officials have said they hope existing contracts with Iraq, particularly in the oil sector, will be upheld regardless of who is in power in Baghdad.

In the months running up to the conflict, all three countries backed U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 last November. That led to the resumption of U.N. inspections for banned weapons which the United States accused Saddam of possessing.

Before hostilities began on March 20, the three issued joint statements criticizing any resort to force and opposing any new resolution endorsing military action.

[codeorama]

Serious Question:

If the US basically blew off the UN, what does the US care about appeasing them now? Why not leave the UN? I don't quite understand. The UN comes up with rules that the US doesn't agree with or doesn't agree that the UN is enforcing properly, so why be a part of that?

[Riggo-toni]

We must not allow the UN to play a pivotal role in "shaping the future of Iraq"!!! Please see my post at

Just Say no to the UN

[JackC]

If that was the meeting how come we were invited? We have, still do and will in the future do business with the axis of evil and countries like them.

Look there are many reasons to be mad at the French and Germans but business isn't one of them. We don't want to be hypocrites do we?

[redman]

Originally posted by The Codeman

Serious Question:

If the US basically blew off the UN, what does the US care about appeasing them now? Why not leave the UN? I don't quite understand. The UN comes up with rules that the US doesn't agree with or doesn't agree that the UN is enforcing properly, so why be a part of that?

Appeasement of the UN isn't the issue. The only thing the UN brings to the table (potentially) is the appearance of international consensus and whatever moral weight that comes with that. But when you have countries like Libya chairing their Committee on Human Rights, and Iraq chairing the Committee on Disarmament, and Cameroon, France, China, Germany and Syria obstructing any move to use military force to disarm Iraq, they don't carry much credibility. Frankly, they're more of a debate society than anything else.

The one thing that they do reasonably well is deliver humanitarian aid. They might therefore be a useful partner in reconstructing Iraq. The reason why France, Germany and Russia are so interested in the UN's involvment is that that will be a way of getting their foot in the door to do business in post-war Iraq as they've always done it in the past.

And Jack, it's not hypocrisy. For more than the last dozen years, the only business we've done in Iraq has been to purchase oil in exchange for money and resources earmarked for humanitarian assistance as part of the UN Oil for Food Program. We haven't built chemical facilities, bunkers, palaces, or other things for Saddam like the French, Germans and Russians have. That you fail to make any such distinction reflects poorly on your intellect, truthfulness, or both.

[codeorama]

redman...

thanks for the response. That makes sense about the humanitarian issues, but I still don't understand why the US would want to be a part of the UN when it is obviously corrupt. The countries in charge of the chairs... that list is amazing. If the world expects the US to be the do gooders and superfriends and save everyone from themselves, why doesn't the US have more say? I don't see any sense in it.

[fansince62]

well...let's hear how much they are willing to ante up to sit at the table!!!!

[gbear]

You guys all seem to talk about the UN as if it is only good for feeding starving people.

I'd like a significantly larger role for the UN. Among the things I'd like to see them do:

1) a police force: Our military is not a police force. 18-24 year olds with no police training policing an entire country is not a recipe for winning over the hearts and minds. Atleast the British troops get some training in this regard. Do our troops get the requisit training? In my opinion, me need police officers over there ASAP. At the moment, we all chuckle as looters steal from government buildings? How long do you think it will be just government buildings? Anarchy just might be the only thing worse than a brutal dictator.

2) Humanitarian aid: We can't feed Iraq by tossig packages from the back of a truck. We need some organized food and water dispersement otherwise people will be forced to steal and fight for it. Again, this isn't how we win the hearts and minds. Also, I don't care if the person rebuilding the bridges and infrastructure is American. I suspect there are competent German/French/Russian engineers. If they're willing, send'em over.

3) election officials: When we get to the point of turning the government over to the Iraqi people, the UN could be a huge help in legitamizing any election. We can't be the ones to count the votes.

4) auditor: When it comes to how the oil money is spent until there is an Iraqi government again, it would be a huge pr boost to have transparency in how the money is spent. It would go a long way to dispelling the myth of "it's all about the money" if the UN and all of it's members can account for every oil dollar.

5. declaring victory: As of right now, who signs a peace treaty at the end of the war? How does this war end? It looks like there's not enough left of the old regime to have somebody to make peace with. It would be nice to have an "end" to the war. Having the UN act as a surrogate for the future government of Iraq for the purposes of making a peace may serve to legitamize the peace if not the war in the eyes of some.

[Cskin]

GBear,

my thoughts exactly. They should play a role, and I think the ones listed can certainly be considered vital, but that's the piece of the pie the French/Germans/Russians don't want. They're not willing to do those things without first being guaranteed that they will be cut in on the reconstruction effort..... where the real money is.

My thoughts, they had their chance to hitch their wagons to the gravy train and thought better of it. Now, the wagon train has left town and their crying in their cereal.

They haven't earned the right to be at the reconstruction table, due mainly because that distinction is made by those countries who spilled blood on the battlefield. US/UK/Australia/Poland/Chech/Spain/Italy/and Kuwait should be at the front of the line. Followed by the less helpful, including Jordanians and the Turks. The rest should be given scraps that only insult them.... just like rewarding them would be insulting to the soldiers who gave their lives and their families would be insulted by their inclusion in any reconstruction idea.

[redman]

gbear-

Please give me an example of where the U.N. has successfully policed a country. I can't think of any. The U.N. is simply abysmal when it comes to any heavy lifting outside of innoculations or feeding the masses. They actually refused to protect, for example, thousands of Rwandans who were seeking protection from slaughter at a U.N. facility from armed soldiers under the U.N. flag.

I don't hate the U.N., I just recognize its rather severe limitations when it comes to making the world a better place.

[gbear]

Not saying it was perfect, but Bosnia the past few years? Considering where they started and where things ended up when the police action ended in Dec, I'd say they did a moderately credible job of establishing a legal system from scratch. Nothing happens overnight, but we've got to stop looting quickly before it becomes riots.

Of course part of the problem is that the UN is usually called in for desperate situations where the expectation is failure. Without much of a legal infrastructure, I'd say Iraq qualifies. Even better though, the risk is then assumed by the UN instead of us. It avoids the whole "look at the lawless country the US created."

What's more, I think if we are the police, there will be no shortage of people from surrounding countries looking to come in and make trouble for the "colonial power." How many volunteers are there to come wage war in Iraq even as it looks hopeless?Having the UN do it speeds our exit from the region, raises our image, costs us less, and probably has a higher chance for success. It's win win all around.