U.N. Was Wary of Role in Post-War Iraq (under US security)

The Associated Press

The United Nations went into post-war Iraq with more trepidation than usual there was little security, the United States had waged a war without U.N. backing and relations with Washington were at an all-time low.

The strains led the U.N. Security Council to authorize a loosely defined mission which was forced to work with the U.S.-led occupation. The cooperation and a dependence on U.S. security may have compromised U.N. neutrality, many suggested.

But Tuesday's bombing, which took the lives of at least 20 people at the U.N.'s Baghdad headquarters, may have cost the organization even more. For the first time, U.N. employees, willing to brave war and disease to help the world's needy, demanded the United Nations leave Iraq and spoke angrily about having gone there in the first place.

In a statement, the U.N. Staff Council's security committee called on Secretary- General Kofi Annan "to suspend all operations in Iraq and withdraw its staff until such time as measures can be taken to improve security." ---

this will only get worse for the U.S. from here on out, i just hope the neo-cons behave rationally :scared:

peace

i read an intersesting article, suggesting the possible fallout from this. Severely strained relations and suspicion from many of the same countries who opposed us. I dont think its "tinfoil hat" according to alot of countries around the world, or to many at the UN. This fuck-up went way too far.

Russia, France, China and others have probably gotten really really cynical.

bu**sh** does not care about the U.N. or anyone else. Why should he? After all, he is the "elected" leader of the world's only superpower.

If this was a U.S. black op. then how many years will it take for that to become common knowledge? In the meantime, what about the rest of the world, wonder what percentage of people in other countries will be willing to believe that the U.S did this?

I mean, it will make me puke if the American public accepts the spin that the al qaida godless terrorists did this and we have to hear about how they are in Iraq and always have been and how this totally justifies the war on terror and Bush was right all along and nobody even mentions ever again the SOTU lies or imminent threat lies or the missing WMDs.

And we are obviously a nation of many fools. However, I believe that the terrorism now striking within Iraq is coming from and being organized within...by a proud people who now hate the true ravagers of their country...the US.

For months the Bush admin has been trying to get other countries to come in and provide assistance without much success.

Do you honestly think other countries would even consider sending in forces now since they see that everyone and everything (including the UN) is a target?

Deliberately blowing up the UN HQ would be totally unproductive to Bush's agenda of getting other countries to join in the occupation effort and for that reason alone I'm willing to discount the black op stuff as a tin foil fantasy..

But I don't discount anything, ever.

I may put it in a mental savings account for ten years, and then get it out and dust it off when info. gets uncovered in the future.

It seems like when something like this happens, you have a few hours to watch and observe the media coverage for hints of the truth that might leak out. After that, forget it, it's all cover-up and political manuvering (they're bull-dozing now, I think). Then the deals and the quid pro quos get going and then somebody has to fight through all that to get to the truth, which can take decades.

I honestly don't understand why folk on D.U. have to declare a position on everything as "tinfoil" or "non-tinfoil". We're liberals, remember? We can handle complexity and ambiguity, unlike conservatives who never venture into the gray areas. I am permanently undecided on just about everything in the immediate present when it comes to political manuvering, and I intend to stay that way. My belief is that absolutely anything is possible at any time, and I also believed my mama when she said "never believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see."

This morning on the Today show, Paul Bremer said that al qaida{sp) has been operating in Iraq for the last ten years. What is tragic is that so much of the public will believe it. I am honestly amazed how many people will accept, without questioning, anything this administration says. It truly just blows me away...

Get the UN out of their hair and at the same time say "see we told you that al qaida was linked to Iraq. We were right the whole time, and the democrats will be tried for treason for suggesting other wise..."

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I just found out about this board a few weeks ago and it is starting to grow on me. I used to visit and post on another board, however, I was the only sane person there....the others were some of the EXTREME right. I thought I might be able to enlighten them some, however, it was totally impossible....they made bush look like a half way reasonable person, and without question that is impossible! So....here I am....:hi:

addict, like the rest of us. ;-)

Welcome!

Eloriel

The only places where I've heard that Al Queada had any kind of presence (from non US sources of course) is in northern Iraq, the part the Kurds where in control of. Saddam hadn't had any control over that region since the end of Gulf War v. 1.0. Or am I mistaken?

If Al Queada was in cahoots with Saddam, why didn't they do anything to the UN during the decade of off and on inspections, and ongoing sanctions? To think they would go and do operations now that they are only 15 minutes to half an hour away from vast amounts of American firepower is to think that they are too stupid to pull off 9/11. But they weren't.....so they aren't that stupid.


I agree with it being the responsibility of Iraqi guerrillas. It was a message, no outsiders are safe.

I don't think the BFEE can get away with any more black ops -- the intelligence community is far too bitter, and leaks would spring almost immediately. If true, this is good news: they can't LIHOP their way out of the coming backlash...

United Nations chief Kofi Annan insisted on Wednesday that the UN had no plans to pull out of Iraq despite the bombing of its Baghdad headquarters, taking a swipe at the United States-led coalition, which he said was responsible for security.

"We will carry on our mandate that has been given to us by the Security Council," the secretary general said at a news conference at Stockholm airport shortly before he was due to board a flight to New York.

Asked whether the UN was planning to withdraw staff from Iraq, Annan said: "We do not intend to do this. We are assessing the situation."

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=19345

http://darkerxdarker.tripod.com/index.html

bounced around by Bush like a geopolitical ping pong ball. Jesus Christ!! First the UN goes into Iraq, which they shouldn't have done, now they are going to remain dependent on the BFEE for security, The BFEE HATES!!! the UN.

When will they learn that the BFEE hates government and particularly as big a threat to their fascist power as the UN?????????

Excerpts from Kofi Annan's remarks in Stockholm earlier today (via the UN website) ...

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites.htm


Note also:
"only two staff decided to take up an offer to be repatriated voluntarily"


Looks like they'll stay as long as they can.

US troops have mucked it up with the locals so bad that German aid groups, like CARE, are saying that Germany shouldn't go in with any troops ....apparently Germany wants to put the troops into a fairly secure area and the aid groups say that that will turn the locals against them and they point to the US troops as an example. Furthermore, they ask why troops should go into secure areas....why not send them to areas where there is unrest, to do what they're SUPPOSED to do...namely, fight, if necessary.

The German aid groups don't want to be associated with the military in any way...they don't want to work in the areas where troops are, even if they are there to supposedly protect the aid workers!! The aid workers prefer to work in dangerous areas without protection because the presence of troops just creates an even more dangerous situation for them!

I posted this article in the last WMW (August 18 edition) which is now archives at Buzzflash. It might still be up at Deutsche-Welle's site (www.dw-world.de I think)

Just as you said, Gloria.

Earlier this year, I talked with a couple of Red Cross workers who pretty well predicted this week's attack on the UN. They said that there is a direct link between the rising number of deliberate attacks against NGOs this decade, and recent attempts at aid delivery by the US military, such as the dropping of food packets and distribution of water etc. by uniformed soldiers (apparently there are special units for this).

They said this makes it increasingly difficult to win the trust of local people. Having troops provide security is very much a double-edged sword -- it wards off bandits, but it also encourages people to associate aid agencies with the invaders -- and "see them as being essentially the same organization with the same aims".

They were resigned to there being no good choices. If you stay out of an area because it's too dangerous, you save yourself and avoid messy entanglements at the expense of local suffering ... but if you go in, you're vulnerable to being attacked. And unlike the military, aid groups generally aren't armed.

I just learned that two Canadians died in the Baghdad explosion -- both associated with UNICEF. One was a woman from Toronto who attended the University of Guelph (where I went in the 1980s). Another was a BC man from a small town not far from where I live now -- he recently graduated from the University of Victoria (where I just completed postgraduate work -- we were in the same building).

I'm worried whenever I turn on the news, thinking about the Canadians in Afghanistan. They are expecting casualties before the end of the year.

I guess the US is now the UN. Peacekeeping is passe.