Tuesday, October 21, 2003
BREMER AND UN RECONSTRUCTION AID
Juan Cole has observations on the recent vote in the UN and Paul Bremer's role in convincing the administration to concede a role to the UN in reconstructing Iraq. Here is a quote:
"[ NYT quote] "A key factor in the change of heart may have been the lobbying by Paul Bremer, the US administrator for post-war Iraq, for a swift release of much-needed funds. "We had to act because the international community was stonewalling us on aid," an administration official told the New York Times. The official added that Mr Bremer said: "I need the money so bad we have to move off our principled opposition to the international community being in charge."
In other words, these arrogant hawks are very, very desperate, so desperate that they will even let the UN have a seat at the table of Iraq reconstruction. Why does Bremer think that excluding everyone but the US from Iraq rebuilding is "principled"? "
Bremer probably understands, as do the hawks, that the intention of some European states in Iraq is to use the UN as a wedge to prevent the decentralization of Iraq's statist economy and adoption of free-market reforms - an eventuality that Professor Cole himself regards with some degree of consternation. A second concern would be the delay of truly democratic governance in Iraq ( not that we have been terribly vigorous ourselves in that regard but France wants a Baathist lite dictatorship in Iraq and the U.S. out with undue haste). A third concern, to which I would give much credence given the history of EU reluctance to recognize that their financial aid to the Palestinian Authority ended up funding suicide bombing operations -is the UN obstructing American security operations in Iraq.
Objecting to letting bad faith actors muck things up in Iraq worse than they are already might be more practical than principled opposition I admit but he concerns of the hawks are legitimate. The French aren't there to be helpful. ¶ 9:00 AM
Juan Cole has observations on the recent vote in the UN and Paul Bremer's role in convincing the administration to concede a role to the UN in reconstructing Iraq. Here is a quote:
"[ NYT quote] "A key factor in the change of heart may have been the lobbying by Paul Bremer, the US administrator for post-war Iraq, for a swift release of much-needed funds. "We had to act because the international community was stonewalling us on aid," an administration official told the New York Times. The official added that Mr Bremer said: "I need the money so bad we have to move off our principled opposition to the international community being in charge."
In other words, these arrogant hawks are very, very desperate, so desperate that they will even let the UN have a seat at the table of Iraq reconstruction. Why does Bremer think that excluding everyone but the US from Iraq rebuilding is "principled"? "
Bremer probably understands, as do the hawks, that the intention of some European states in Iraq is to use the UN as a wedge to prevent the decentralization of Iraq's statist economy and adoption of free-market reforms - an eventuality that Professor Cole himself regards with some degree of consternation. A second concern would be the delay of truly democratic governance in Iraq ( not that we have been terribly vigorous ourselves in that regard but France wants a Baathist lite dictatorship in Iraq and the U.S. out with undue haste). A third concern, to which I would give much credence given the history of EU reluctance to recognize that their financial aid to the Palestinian Authority ended up funding suicide bombing operations -is the UN obstructing American security operations in Iraq.
Objecting to letting bad faith actors muck things up in Iraq worse than they are already might be more practical than principled opposition I admit but he concerns of the hawks are legitimate. The French aren't there to be helpful. ¶ 9:00 AM
