|
A Post-Saddam United Nations
British Prime Minster Tony Blair spent a relaxing evening by the fire at Camp David with
President Bush and then went on to meet with Kofi Annan in New York. Blair's immediate objective is to restart
the UN oil for food program. It has been suspended and possesses a large accumulation of unallocated money from
previous oil sales. Blair's long term objective, however, is much more profound. He wants to see the United States
return to working through the existing multilateral, transnational framework of UN, EU and NATO. He wants that
cooperation to exist, of course, within these three multinationals organizations as lead by Great Britain, not
by France.
Dealing with the smaller issue first, the oil for food program will restart, probably or at least possibly with
the Bush bee sting intact. As the program currently is administered, Saddam's regime sells oil under contracts
inspected by UN personnel who verify their compliance. The regime then openly specifies what it wants to purchase
from an approved list of products and services and who it will buy from. French and Russian middlemen then execute
the orders and the money is processed through French and Russian banks. Fees fly around in several directions.
Under the new request to resume the program, Kofi Annan's office would replace the Iraqi regime as purchaser and
there would be no need for the further services of France and Russia. The sales run in the billions and the fees
in the millions.
Blair's principal goal for the weekend is to halt that element of the Bush team that does not want the United Nations
to play a "central" role in rebuilding Iraq. The draft plans at the moment call for General Jay Garner,
director of the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, to lead an advisory council of
Iraqi expatriates and experienced retired diplomats in the initial phases of reconstruction.
Their responsibilities would include emergency relief and refugees; roads, rail and waterways; economic development
and weeding out Baath Party officials without destroying the existing bureaucracy. Their mandate would be temporary
to buy time while Iraqi citizens sorted out their representatives and rules of governance.
Arguing against this solution will be Blair and Colin Powell. They will insist that bypassing the UN is such a
break from tradition that the rift with our allies will be widened. The US, they will say, cannot afford to antagonize
the world community by denying the UN one of its central roles. They also need other people's money to avoid a
taxpayer revolt at home. In truth, Iraq oil reserves are so vast that they could borrow for reconstruction without
tapping either donors or taxpayers.
The French have already begun to formulate plans to obtain lucrative oil and reconstruction contracts. A meeting
of their powerful business federation is scheduled for April 3rd. They plan to charge the United States with waging
a colonial war and offer as proof the deeding of multibillion-dollar contracts to American firms. A colonial America
will incite terrorism, they will say. They have already intimated that because of French history in the region,
their executives will be safe but American executives will run the risk of assassination,
In the tumble of American politics, it is unlikely that voters would be impressed with any move which once again
places American under the influence of a French veto in the Security Council. The distinction may be at the crossroads
of humanitarian aid and reconstruction. Under international law, the Russians, French and Germans will argue, the
UN may not subcontract to a military occupation force. The Geneva Convention would forbid long-term cooperation
without Security Council approval. The UN can, however, offer emergency relief for refugees, children, food distribution
and humanitarian coordination of relief programs. The Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are expected to campaign
on the side of the UN and insist that they are unauthorized to subcontract to the US government. France has indicated
that it will veto any plan that would sideline any UN agency or NGO.
When the American public becomes fully aware of the duplicitous behavior of Russia, France and Germany, it is unlikely
that an American president can advocate placing the country in any situation where these three have veto power.
French personnel have even been expelled from Saudi Arabia for attempting to spy on allied computer networks. All
three will likely be implicated in dealing for non-sanctioned military items and accepting money generated by smuggled
oil. All will have demonstrated extensive bribery connections, perhaps through their business and banks and back
directly to politicians at home. Finally, this crowd will have no incentive or motivation to produce a success
in Iraq. That would discredit their current policy positions. The public would also ask if the typical UN decisiveness
and prompt statesmanship would be applied to meddling situations from Turkey, Iran or Syria.
For the United States, putting itself under UN auspices would create a huge free rider problem for its coalition
of the willing. Free riding is the polite economic term for free loading. It refers to those, like in the child's
tale of Henny Penny, who are around to share the benefits but disappear when there is work to be done. Exactly
what is left for proven friends when proved opponents wind up with the benefits?
For Tony Blair, there is still a larger issue. Can the rusty institutions of Europe be fixed? How much of an improvement
over Stalinist tyranny is French socialism? It may be better to create new institutions for international cooperation
than to fix the unfixable.
|
