EU Ministers Support Iraq Handover

[Timber Loftis]

Color commentary by yours truly.

September 29, 2003 European Union Ministers Support Iraq Handover By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 10:59 a.m. ET BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The European Union, whose members were bitterly divided over the war to oust Saddam Hussein, disagreed Monday on a timetable for a handover of power to a sovereign Iraqi government.

Article seems interesting. Since when did EU leaders have a say? Hmm... guess I'll read on....

Meeting behind closed doors, the foreign ministers of the 15-member European Union issued a unanimous statement that a transfer of power in Iraq should occur ``as soon as feasible'' and that the United Nations should play a ``vital'' role in the transition.

If this is an epiphany, it's a bit late. The first statement was made before the US even went to Iraq, and the second was made by Bushie-boy to the Neutered United Nations not too long ago.

The EU foreign ministers also asked foreign policy chief Javier Solana to develop proposals on an ``enhanced EU role in Iraq,'' including the possible dispatch of peacekeepers.

Right. Peacekeepers are needed ASAP. So, let's have someone develop some proposals to get them there, and then our committees can review it. Don't forget to send it to the Committee on Committees (don't laugh -- they exist, even in the US Congress) and the DORD (Department of Redundancy Department). Maybe by 2005 they can take a decision as to whether or not they ought take a decision (for you Yanks "take a decision" is EU-speak for our "make a decision").

The statement did not detail the positions of member nations about a timetable, but French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin over the weekend called for a transfer by the end of the year.

Proving once again he does drugs. [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] What kind of crack are these people on? First, it ain't gonna happen - duh - so this is just a statement "to give the big middle finger to the USA." Second, by the end of the year, these idiots won't have figured out whether or not they're going to think about thinking about doing something.

The United States has proposed that Iraq adopt a new constitution in six months, with elections to follow, and a greater U.N. role in the country's reconstruction.

Sounds fair.

EU foreign ministers said a new U.N. resolution was essential to formalize a transfer of power from the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and that the United Nations ``should play a vital role'' in Iraq's reconstruction.

Oops, pass the bong again. [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] Yeah, Reslutions have such sweeping success at getting things done. Tell you what, you guys spend between now and 1/1/04 hammering out a resolution and we'll veto it. Seems simple to us. Call when you're ready, mmkay?

Their statement said it was necessary to reach a deal ``on a realistic schedule for handing over political control to the Iraqi people ... as soon as feasible.''

Well, handing Iraq over to the Iraqis ASAP is agreeable all-around. But, as this article demonstrates, we have not found a veritable font of wisdom regarding what is "realistic."

The issue over how and when power should be given to an independent Iraqi government is thwarting a deal at the United Nations, pitting France against the United States. France, Germany and Belgium were the most vocal EU nations in opposition to the war while Britain sent troops and sided with the United States. The Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Portugal and Spain have also recently sent troops. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, whose country holds the EU presidency, sought to bridge the divide between France and Britain over a new U.N. resolution. Dutch Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said a lot of work remained to be done to get consensus on Iraq both in Europe and at the U.N. ``This (proposed resolution) could be the beginning of a solution, but we are not there yet,'' he said. The ministers said the appointment of an interim Iraqi Cabinet and moves toward writing a new constitution marked were ``significant'' steps. But they remained concerned over the security situation, and condemned the recent attacks against U.N. aid workers.

Right. Condemn those darned attacks. Evil attackers. Horrible attacks. We'll have our fellow Americans there dying while you're busy waving fingers of chastisement at both sides. Thanks a heap for your latest input. Tell you what, if you want a say-so in the matter, you should have to send at least 1000 troops first. Get some of your guys on the line dying to put this nation back together and then you get some respect. Like those nations in the list, none of whom were the ones whining and bitching (and typically doing so) mentioned in this article.

[ 09-29-2003, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Article seems interesting. Since when did EU leaders have a say? Hmm... guess I'll read on....

The EU leaders began this discussion when George Bush asked the United Nations for cash and troops. The EU is therefore debating the terms under which they will advance further aid to the United States in response to its request.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If this is an epiphany, it's a bit late. The first statement was made before the US even went to Iraq, and the second was made by Bushie-boy to the Neutered United Nations not too long ago.

Bush only mentioned a 'humanitarian' role for the UN - never a 'vital' role in the transition of power.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Right. Peacekeepers are needed ASAP. So, let's have someone develop some proposals to get them there, and then our committees can review it. Don't forget to send it to the Committee on Committees (don't laugh -- they exist, even in the US Congress) and the DORD (Department of Redundancy Department). Maybe by 2005 they can take a decision as to whether or not they ought take a decision (for you Yanks "take a decision" is EU-speak for our "make a decision")

Care to qualify that statement with examples? Or is this rude country bashing?

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Proving once again he does drugs. What kind of crack are these people on? First, it ain't gonna happen - duh - so this is just a statement "to give the big middle finger to the USA." Second, by the end of the year, these idiots won't have figured out whether or not they're going to think about thinking about doing something.

The fast transfer of power back to the Iraqi people is seen as the only way to achieve stability - the Iraqi population have been calling for this and even the Governing Council have requested it. The transfer of the bulk of the civilian power (ex. security) is still possible by the end of the year - if the US were to begin now.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Oops, pass the bong again. Yeah, Reslutions have such sweeping success at getting things done. Tell you what, you guys spend between now and 1/1/04 hammering out a resolution and we'll veto it.

The United States wrote and presented the resolution currently under discussion. Why would it veto it's own resolution???

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Right. Condemn those darned attacks. Evil attackers. Horrible attacks. We'll have our fellow Americans there dying while you're busy waving fingers of chastisement at both sides. Thanks a heap for your latest input. Tell you what, if you want a say-so in the matter, you should have to send at least 1000 troops first. Get some of your guys on the line dying to put this nation back together and then you get some respect. Like those nations in the list, none of whom were the ones whining and bitching (and typically doing so) mentioned in this article

And now we have come full circle. It wasn't the EU begging the US to be given the chance to send troops and money to be burned in Iraq - the United States asked the EU for aid: and the EU is simply spelling out how the US can gain this assistance.

And the US appears to have listened to those suggestions and as a result:
"The United States said on Monday it would lay out steps in a new draft U.N. resolution to put Iraqis back in control of their country as the human cost of occupying Iraq mounted.

The U.N. resolution, which Secretary of State Colin Powell predicted would be ready within days, was aimed at answering European complaints that a previous draft was too vague on how Iraqis could replace U.S. occupation authorities."
Reuters, 29th September, 2003

So take it easy, if the new resolution offers a proper timetable for the return of Iraqi sovereignty, you'll soon see EU troops and money rolling in to help Uncle Sam out. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-29-2003, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: Bush only mentioned a 'humanitarian' role for the UN - never a 'vital' role in the transition of power.

Ummmm.... Okay, a fine distinction, but I concede it. I don't think it will happen that way, but stranger things have happened.

Care to qualify that statement with examples? Or is this rude country bashing?

Nope. I don't. The Resolutions game over Iraq was enough to convince me. 10 years and nothing. Take it as country-bashing if you will. Country-bashing is certainly part of my post.

The fast transfer of power back to the Iraqi people is seen as the only way to achieve stability - the Iraqi population have been calling for this and even the Governing Council have requested it. The transfer of the bulk of the civilian power (ex. security) is still possible by the end of the year - if the US were to begin now.

Again, only for those on crack. It ain't gonna happen. No bureacracy, the US, the UN, or otherwise, moves that fast.

The United States wrote and presented the resolution currently under discussion. Why would it veto it's own resolution???

Okay, I didn't look closely enough. Conceded.

And now we have come full circle. It wasn't the EU begging the US to be given the chance to send troops and money to be burned in Iraq - the United States asked the EU for aid: and the EU is simply spelling out how the US can gain this assistance.

But my argument is that this is a humanitarian efforts and all of the high-horse nations have a duty to help REGARDLESS.

And the US appears to have listened to those suggestions and as a result: "The United States said on Monday it would lay out steps in a new draft U.N. resolution to put Iraqis back in control of their country as the human cost of occupying Iraq mounted. The U.N. resolution, which Secretary of State Colin Powell predicted would be ready within days, was aimed at answering European complaints that a previous draft was too vague on how Iraqis could replace U.S. occupation authorities." Reuters, 29th September, 2003 So take it easy, if the new resolution offers a proper timetable for the return of Iraqi sovereignty, you'll soon see EU troops and money rolling in to help Uncle Sam out. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'll have to check the link and see the US's UN resolution, but here's to hoping. [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[ 09-30-2003, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Nope. I don't. The Resolutions game over Iraq was enough to convince me. 10 years and nothing. Take it as country-bashing if you will. Country-bashing is certainly part of my post.

Well, bear in mind that the EU is larger than France and Germany - otherwise the UK would never have been 'allowed' to take part in the Iraq campaign, eh?
And there is currently no common EU foreign policy - although there is an ongoing attempt to introduce the concept via the new EU Constitution.

Also the UN and the SC is not comprised merely of EU member states - but encompasses 191 sovereign countries; so the actions/inactions of the UN is not merely an EU affair - and therefore it is unfair to judge the EU by a body that it does not control.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Again, only for those on crack. It ain't gonna happen. No bureacracy, the US, the UN, or otherwise, moves that fast.

The UN moved that fast in Bosnia. It moved that fast later on in Kosovo (despite the then ongoing poor security situation and refugee problems), proving that it can be done - if there is a will to do so.