Printable View
Well, the debate is still being waged on the UN's political role in the new Iraq. Wanted to know everyone's opinion out here.
As for my opinion, I see no UN political role in this at all. I'd rather see coalition forces taking firm control of the country till a civilian administration is in place. Too risky, not worth it. You'd end up with chaos if the UN took over the political scene
The UN would mean peace keeping troops from a number of countries including the muslim nations which would make this look more like peace keeping and less like pacification. Although this is a small distinction it would add greatly to the legitimacy of the civilian government that follows, IMO.
There also needs to be a period of rebuilding the UN because, incredibly flawed as it is, it is still the only forum on which nation can talk peace unto nation.
The way I see it, the UN couldn't back up its own resolutions. How can they run a country?
Humanitarian aid and stuff like that....sure.
Well, if everybody paid their dues perhaps the UN would have the resources to back up their own resolutions.
I agree there, it would look better. But would it work? That's the question I ask. Could the UN actually reach an agreement in the Security Council? Could the UN actually bring about political stability in the country?Quote:
Originally posted by MerrionComputin
The UN would mean peace keeping troops from a number of countries including the muslim nations which would make this look more like peace keeping and less like pacification. Although this is a small distinction it would add greatly to the legitimacy of the civilian government that follows, IMO.
The UN's record for rebuilding countries is better than America's
plus American soldiers seem incapable of carrying out peace keeping missions (or they just don't want to).
I think that a UN/US cosponsored mission might work - that way it wouldn't have to go through the security council. The UN would supply it's humanitarian, administrative and policing backed by the US/UK/Aus/Spainish troops as needed.
The UN would have to pass more resolutions if they wanted to administer post-war Iraq. Right now all they have the authority to do is provide humanitarian aide. Personally I think the UN is quite worthless when it comes to running anything. They have had quite a few failures when it comes to agreeing on providing simple humanitarian aide and stopping genocide (Bosnia and Rwanda...Link ) and have failed in backing up many of their own resolutions (Iraq, Israel, and so on).
The countries who were against this action should have 0 say in how Iraq gets run and rebuilt. They were not the ones putting their troops or political reputations on the line therefore they shouldn't have a say in anything that gets done inside Post-war Iraq.
X
I say we let the U.N. Control the Humanatarian and Policing efforts while the U.S./U.K establish the new government and start rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq.
As far as France getting a say in the Political structure of Iraq...i just have to laugh at that.
My tax dollars funded this war. Why should France get the good contracts to rebuild when America is the one footing the bill for the war? I want to see a lot of American companies getting the dollars.