 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
Just one question: What exactly is he going to do about it? I have nothing against France but this guy is really out of touch with reality. What is he going to do, threaten a veto again?
-----------------------------------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2873701.stm
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:27
|
|
1. Don't be fooled by the title. France's official objective is to have the UN rebuilding, and not the only US and UK. It is a very different thing than rejecting all help that would come from the US and the UK.
2. the aim of this diplomatic argument (it is a mere argument right now - it can become ugly later, or become soothed) is to push the UN at the frontstage of Iraqi reconstruction, hence giving to France part of the responsibility in the reconstruction, and also part of the loot.
3. The US and UK might turn to the UN for reconstruction, because a UN funded reconstruction will spare them tons of money. Only in 2 situations would US and UK not ask the UN to take care of the reconstruction :
- if they have nearly no interest in it, and won't give a **** about what becomes Iraq once their objectives are reached. It is unlikely, because the US knows very much the mayhem that would emerge of an Iraq void of authority.
- if they have an incredibly strong interest in it, and are ready to put tons of money in a long and ungrateful task, in order to avoid any chaos originating from Iraq. US/UK want to install a beacon of democracy for the ME in Iraq, but I doubt the spend-cuts prone Bush admin will give enough money for this aim in the long run.
The US/UK could also try to occupy by themselves Iraq just to lower the position of the UN and to give an utter diplomatic defeat to Chirac, but that would be an irresponsible move.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:27
|
|
Spiffor, you contradict yourself. You speak of "loot" the French want from rebuilding, and cost "tons of money" that US/UK would incur.
Which is it?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Chirac missed a great opportunity to keep quiet... |

Don't hesitate to use it again in the future, because he'll miss many more again. (this time I know where the reference comes from )
But OTOH, I think it would be far better for the stability in the region if UN was in charge of the reconstruction. I have posted long on the issue few days ago, so I'll be short here :
- UN-led reconstruction's funding will not be dependent on the financial priorities of the US, which can be pretty shortsighted before the voting.
- UN has a much higher experience in rebuilding countries, with a wide array of specialized and experienced services on construction, education, infrastructure, food, water, childhood etc. The US would have to start such agencies from scratch.
- UN has much more experience in looking for compromises, and this will be a needed feat in a country where Kurds, Shias and Sunnis will want to defend their interests, and where bordering countries like Turkey, Saudi or Iran will exert pressure too (not forgetting the US)
- UN is likely to pour more money in the long run than the US. Especially because it knows how ungrateful and long a reconstruction process can be.
- UN will be less open to clientelism from the factions, and should not give more aid to a faction that's more loyal. A US/UK led action would use any tool available to keep its legitimacy, including aid.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|