‘The UN has no place in Iraq' (interview with UN humanitarian coordinator)

[Barrett808]

The more confusing the situation in Iraq becomes, the louder the calls for the United Nations to step in. The mantra for the UN to be given a key role with a strong international mandate has great appeal, especially in Europe.

But some insiders believe the UN should stay out of Iraq. One of them is Denis Halliday, a former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq. In this interview with Radio Netherlands, he says calling in the UN now would be a grave mistake:

"The UN cannot, must not, collaborate with an illegal occupying force such as we have in Iraq today. Secondly, the UN does not entertain assistance or peacekeeping or any other function in any sovereign state without a specific invitation of that sovereign government."

"Now, in the case of Iraq, we in fact have no legitimate sovereign state under the present circumstances. The illegal presence of the Americans has demolished the state in reality ... in fact, Saddam Hussein and the old Baath government under law I would say remains the sovereign presence."

"But that of course has been dismissed and sadly, even the UN Security Council member states have unfortunately gone along to a certain extent with the Bush regime approach: in a sense dismissed that government also. So, we now have an illegal situation, and the UN in my view has no role until that occupation is terminated."


(more)

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/un040518.html

[rocktivity]

1. ...at least, as long as Bush is in office.

;)
rocknation

[bahrbearian]

2. until that occupation is terminated

That make perfect sense."The UN cannot, must not, collaborate with an illegal occupying force "

[TrogL]

3. The ultimate irony

I could see this happening.

• US turns Iraq over to interim government June 30th.
  
• US turns Saddam over to interim government for trial.
  
• Interim government finds Saddam not guilty and re-instates him as leader of Iraq.
  
• Saddam calls in the UN to help with reconstruction.
  

[Cheneys_former_heart]

4. Wow--that's a helluva scenario, TrogL

Stranger things have happened, especially in this occupation. Hell, Saddam's generals are in charge of Falluja, so what the hell?

[noahmijo]

12. You really believe the Iraqis would let Saddam go?

That has got to be the biggest pipe dream I've heard today.

Saddam has royally fucked over virtually every group within Iraq from those that wanted simple lives to the violent radical Muslims who hate Saddam for making Iraq a socialist nation that is governed by no god but him.

No way in hell the people of Iraq including those that hate us are gonna let Saddam go free not after what he's done.

Of course if the "new govt" is made up of Saddam loyalists, well of course that will be a different scenario.

[Zhade]

14. You really believe the Iraqis will have a say in their government?

The only say they have now is from the barrel of a gun, pointed at the illegal occupiers (and, sadly, our friends and family) ruling their land with an iron fist.

[librechik]

15. Didn't Franco come back after WWII

and rule Spain for many years?

After all, fascists have to support each other in this cold, liberal- biased world. It could happen.

In fact, frankly, I'd be relieved. At least we could be reasonably sure the mullahs wouldn't take over in Iraq, for now.

Naw, that's crazy talk. It's quite suspenseful. I wonder what will actually happen?

Yikes, watch this post get linked on Lucianne as one of those crazy Saddam lovin liberal posts. Just for the record I HATE SADDAM

(almost as much as I hate W)

[sandnsea]

5. former UN Humanitarian coordinator

Not an official UN position, just so the people who didn't actually click the link know who is saying this.

A good overall view, but there's more than the quotes imply.

[Barrett808]

9. Yeah, I couldn't fit "former" into the title. Heh. n/t

[peterh]

6. I agree…the UN should stay out….

and Brahimi should tell bush to kiss his ass….the neocons are setting up the UN, along with Brahimi to be the ultimate fall guys and you can see it in the following commentary….

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gannon18may18,1,112990.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

you can’t legitimize puppet regimes and bush has already set the trap by continually saying the ball is in Brahimi’s court…….they marginalized the UN before the war and they’re setting them up to be marginalized again.

[Just Me]

7. Buck UP, UN!!! "CHANGE"!!!! Make a difference!!!!

ACT NOW,...to protect the minority from the majority.

The whole freakin' world WANTS you to make a difference.

Change the "veto" power.

Change it NOW!!!!

Place a "veto" in the hands of a majority. Stop putting it in the hands of the most dangerous concentrated few.

All "vetoes" should be in the hands of humanity, period.

[Zhade]

16. I second that.

Enough of the tyranny of the majority. Just look at how many times the U.S. has vetoed resolutions against the Israeli government's war crimes, for example.

End the madness, or the UN truly will become irrelevant!

[struggle4progress]

8. Some in NATO has doubts too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x563590

[eurolefty]

10. Which nation would send in the "UN personnel"?

As far as I know, many European countries have laws against sending peacekeepers into situations like the mess in Iraq. And the UN will not put its civilian personnel into danger.

More British troops could be send in, but they are not particularly winning the Iraqi hearts and minds either.

[reprobate]

21. The United States of course would send in UN personnel

[eurolefty]

22. You mean your guys would just switch uniforms?

I'd say you have a slight credibility problem with the local populace.

[geek tragedy]

11. I'm really trying not to play Freeper here, but

is he really saying that he views Saddam as the legitimate leader of Iraq and that it's sad that other states and the UN have dismissed him?

Not trying to argue, just seeking clarification.:-)

[eurolefty]

13. Yes

Saddam is the leader of Iraq, until new Iraqi government is formed. The U.S. occupation is illegal, according to international law.

[geek tragedy]

17. Is Saddam the leader, or

is the US the de facto occupier of Iraq and thus the "sovereign?" There was no sovereign in Afghanistan in 2001, nor was there one in East Timor for many years.

[eurolefty]

18. The occupier has no rights under international law

Of course, I'm just pretending that the U.S. would care about international law. In reality, the U.S. will do whatever it wants.

[geek tragedy]

19. The occupier

does have responsibilities, actually. The whole "you broke it you bought it" idea.

[eurolefty]

20. Yes. n/t