|
Arabs: Let's Send Muslim Peacekeepers to Iraq! Allawi: Sounds Good! Bush: No thanks!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Muslim peacekeepers for Iraq nixed
Bush said no to plan to send Muslim peacekeepers to Iraq to help UN organize elections
By Mohamad Bazzi
Middle East Correspondent
October 18, 2004
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- President George W. Bush rebuffed a plan last month for a Muslim peacekeeping force that would have helped the United Nations organize elections in Iraq, according to Saudi and Iraqi officials.
As a result, the UN continues to have a skeletal presence in Iraq, with only four staff members working full time on preparing for elections set for the end of January. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has refused to establish a new UN headquarters in Baghdad unless countries commit troops for a special force to protect it.
Saudi leaders, including Crown Prince Abdullah, personally lobbied Bush in July to sign off on the plan to establish a contingent of several hundred troops from Arab and Muslim nations. Abdullah discussed the plan in a 10-minute phone conversation with Bush on July 28 after meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell, according to Saudi officials familiar with the negotiations.
Diplomats said Annan accepted the plan. But the Bush administration objected because the special force would have been controlled by the UN instead of by U.S. military officers who run the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Muslim and Arab countries refused to work under U.S. command, and the initiative died in early September.
"Muslim countries that were willing to provide troops were not willing to put them under the command of the U.S.-led coalition," said a senior Iraqi security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "In many of these nations, there was too much domestic pressure for the governments to justify putting their troops under U.S. control."
The White House confirmed Friday that U.S. military commanders raised objections because the Muslim troops would not have been under their control. "It was a serious issue for commanders of the Multi-National Force," said a White House spokesman who refused to be identified by name.
The spokesman said the primary reason for the plan's failure was opposition from the Iraqi government, which did not want troops from neighboring countries to be deployed inside Iraq.
But Iraqi officials already had worked out a deal with the Saudis ruling out the involvement of any country that borders Iraq. In early July, the interim Iraqi prime minister, Ayad Allawi, sent letters formally requesting troops to about a dozen Arab and Muslim nations. Allawi also visited several countries in July and August to personally plead with their leaders to send troops.
The episode raises doubts about the Bush administration's repeated assertions that proper elections can be held in Iraq by January and that it is eager to have other countries send troops to Iraq to ease the burden on American forces. The U.S.-led coalition has been losing members since the insurgency intensified in April. Five countries -- Spain, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and the Philippines -- have pulled out their troops, about 2,200 total.
At least two other countries plan to withdraw their forces earlier than scheduled. While the pullouts have had little military impact, they have embarrassed the Bush administration during an election year.
Missed opportunity
"This was a missed opportunity for the United States to have other nations share the burden in Iraq," said a Saudi official who asked not to be named.
Of the 160,000 coalition troops in Iraq, about 135,000 are Americans. Britain has the second largest contingent, with about 9,000 soldiers. The rest come from 28 other countries, none of them Muslim.
Saudi Arabia began recruiting Arab and Muslim countries to send troops to Baghdad in early July, soon after an interim Iraqi government took political power from the U.S.-led occupation authority. By late July, Abdullah had presented the initiative to Annan, Bush and Powell.
After meeting with Abdullah on July 28 in the Saudi port city of Jeddah, Powell called it "an interesting idea, a welcome idea." At that point, no countries had signed on to send troops, but Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Algeria and Morocco were "seriously interested," the Saudi official said. Saudi diplomats also had presented the idea to officials in Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia and Oman.
Initially, the Saudis pressed to create a full-fledged peacekeeping force, possibly made up of several thousand Muslim troops. That force would have protected the UN mission and worked alongside Iraqi forces in other security functions. The Saudi official said Pakistan, which has one of the largest and most experienced armies in the Muslim world, was willing to commit several hundred soldiers to help start the process. But Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf insisted that other countries must commit forces before he would give final approval.
Iraqi officials said they did not want countries that border Iraq to contribute to a security force, ruling out Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Iran and Turkey. The Saudis agreed with that condition and promised to provide financial support to the peacekeeping force and possibly to some of the nations that agreed to contribute troops.
Questions of control
From the beginning, the main stumbling block was the issue of command and control. Muslim countries did not want to put their forces under U.S. command because of domestic pressures. The Saudis proposed that the new force work under direct UN control. But the United States and the Iraqi government balked.
"We thought that there was no system in place to allow a separate UN command structure," said the Iraqi official.
After meeting with Saudi and Iraqi leaders in late July, Powell hinted that a compromise could be reached. "The questions that we are looking at have to do with the nature of the proposal in order to garner the support of Muslim nations and populations there. The Saudis thought it would be appropriate to make a separate reporting chain up to the UN officials," Powell said after visiting Saudi Arabia. "It's just one of the things that we are looking at to see if there is a way to work around that."
At one point, the Saudis proposed that Muslim forces be placed under the command of the Iraqi government. That idea won over Allawi, but not the United States. "The Americans wanted ultimate control, and that made it impossible to make this work," said the Iraqi official.
When U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq in March 2003, many Arab and Muslim regimes were caught between pressure to back the United States and domestic anger over the occupation of a storied Islamic land. After the United States handed political sovereignty to Iraqis on June 28, regional power brokers such as Saudi Arabia hoped that Muslim governments would become more directly involved in improving security and rebuilding Iraq.
But Arab and Muslim masses largely support the Iraqi insurgency and are suspicious of Allawi's government because of his ties to the CIA and British intelligence. Islamic militants operating in Iraq are also likely to view troops from Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt and Algeria as appealing targets because they come from countries that have cracked down on militants in recent years.
One way around the public backlash, Saudi diplomats argued, was to make clear that the Muslim peacekeepers would be focused solely on protecting the UN. "Kofi Annan's request for a special force presented an opportunity to involve the Islamic world," said the Saudi official.
The UN sent about 600 international staff members to Iraq soon after the U.S. invasion. But Annan ordered all staff members to leave in August 2003 after a car bombing destroyed the UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing 22 people, including top UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello. An investigating commission sharply criticized Annan and other officials for allowing lax security and ignoring threats against UN offices in Iraq.
Caution since deadly attack
Since the bombing, Annan has been very cautious in deploying UN staff members to Iraq. Some diplomats say that has jeopardized important projects in Iraq, especially the preparations for national elections.
"There is tremendous pressure on Annan from staff groups and some of his deputies to ensure maximum security, even though the situation in Iraq is dangerous for everyone," said an Arab diplomat at the UN. "This has created a kind of paralysis for UN efforts."
When he first arrived in Baghdad in July, newly appointed UN envoy Ashraf Jehangir Qazi said security was "the first priority, the second priority and the third priority." Today, Qazi is working with a staff of 35 to 40 people whose movement is very limited and who must rely on U.S. forces for protection.
For the Saudi official, the UN's limited presence in Iraq is a missed opportunity. "If our peacekeeping initiative had been adopted," he said, "the UN would have a much more active role in Iraq today."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...y-top-headlines
|
Who needs other troops when you have the almighty coalition of the willing??? Kerry's plan to internationalize the peacekeeping force? What a load of crock ... clearly we should reserve all the bullets and rpgs for americans!
Meanwhile the US has asked the UK to redeploy troops to compensate for US troop shortages:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/e...oops/index.html
Australia has refused requests to send additional troops:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/a...oops/index.html
Ehhh I'm not worried though ... because I'm not forgetting Poland! |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| well that is just stupid. will be fun to see what all the bush protectionists here have to say :) |
|
|
| Yoepus |
yup stupid - I don't understand what harm could have come from any contigent of such a small number of Arab troops in Iraq.
Of course on the flip side the only real benifits would have been symbolic...
Thinking more about this....
What I don't understand though is this:
If the US is allowing the UN into Iraq, how can it prevent who the UN decides to use as a peacekeeping force?
The whole story seems a miss.
Does the US get to pick and chose the force gaurding the UN missions?
Hmmm...Sweden? Yes. Australia? Ok. Nigeria? Sure. Argentina? Pass ... etc?? :rolleyes:
Seems stupid to me. If Kofi wanted Arab troops in there he could have gotten them in there. I don't think the USA could do much about them. If the US didn't want Arab troops in Iraq because they weren't under US control then - DUH OF COURSE - but if they are serving under the UN I don't see how the UN could pick and chose and decide which nation can serve and which can not.
I think this is simply smear article. Something is no adding up.
I am thinking either someone in Saudia Arabia or the UN wanted an exit out of the plan, and smearing it as the fault of the USA was obviously the best way to do that.
If they wanted troops there under the UN, blame the UN for not making it happen not the US.
Otherwise, only blame the US if the Arabs were offering troops to serve under the US in Iraq. |
|
|
| Dervish |
All I know is over here there is big talk about the Uk troops getting moved to cover for the American units.
I mean BIG.
And if you look into to it deeply it looks like a Blair play to up Gordon Brown(they are kinda having a phoney(know what I mean by that?) war over the leadership). Well the people who vote for him or so voted for him to get his seat in parly are the relatives(his area if you know what I mean) of the people (troops) who are going to be sent into this.
i.e. Black Watch Troops die >>>> People from that area don't vote labour (Gordon Brown) >>>> No Gordon Brown to anoy old Tony.
Least thats my view on it no-wheres reported that.
>>>> LINK <<<< |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
yup stupid - I don't understand what harm could have come from any contigent of such a small number of Arab troops in Iraq.
Of course on the flip side the only real benifits would have been symbolic...
|
If a few thousand troops are only symbolic than how can Bush say with any straight face that we have ANY meaningful coalition in Iraq since the Brits only have a few thousand troops and they are the second largest member of the coalition?
| quote: |
Thinking more about this....
What I don't understand though is this:
If the US is allowing the UN into Iraq, how can it prevent who the UN decides to use as a peacekeeping force?
The whole story seems a miss.
Does the US get to pick and chose the force gaurding the UN missions?
Hmmm...Sweden? Yes. Australia? Ok. Nigeria? Sure. Argentina? Pass ... etc?? :rolleyes:
Seems stupid to me. If Kofi wanted Arab troops in there he could have gotten them in there. I don't think the USA could do much about them. If the US didn't want Arab troops in Iraq because they weren't under US control then - DUH OF COURSE - but if they are serving under the UN I don't see how the UN could pick and chose and decide which nation can serve and which can not.
I think this is simply smear article. Something is no adding up.
I am thinking either someone in Saudia Arabia or the UN wanted an exit out of the plan, and smearing it as the fault of the USA was obviously the best way to do that.
If they wanted troops there under the UN, blame the UN for not making it happen not the US.
Otherwise, only blame the US if the Arabs were offering troops to serve under the US in Iraq. |
First of all, the UN doesn't have any troops in Iraq right now. Secondly, the UN doesn't force peacekeepers into a region, member nations can choose to contribute forces under a UN mandate. Those muslim countries offered to send troops under that mandate and under UN command not US command ... the US refused the offer. What can the UN do? Land a few thousand troops into the region without a clear understanding of their role to operate besides US forces who vastly outnumber them? You'd then have multiple armies acting in Iraq with no coordination between them leading to a situation fraught with chaos. No country is going to send troops into Iraq in such a chaotic condition without a clear command structure, and how that command is to interact with the American forces. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
If a few thousand troops are only symbolic than how can Bush say with any straight face that we have ANY meaningful coalition in Iraq since the Brits only have a few thousand troops and they are the second largest member of the coalition? |
We aren't debating that here. My understanding from the article that the offer to send 'thousands' of troops was dropped straight out by Saudia Arabia - not the US.
| quote: | | First of all, the UN doesn't have any troops in Iraq right now. |
If you want to call them troops then you are right. But if you want to call them what the UN calls them, peackeepers, or security forces then you are wrong. Lets not play a word game here to skirt the issue.
The UN does have security forces today in Iraq under its own direct control - Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
| quote: | | Secondly, the UN doesn't force peacekeepers into a region, member nations can choose to contribute forces under a UN mandate. |
It wasn't under my impression that the Saudis were NOT forced by the UN to contribute troops. From the article I understood they OFFERED troops to the UN.
| quote: | | Those muslim countries offered to send troops under that mandate and under UN command not US command ... |
So we agree on your second premise. Why'd you even go mention the second premise then?! :conf:
| quote: | | the US refused the offer. |
Wrong the US refused to allow troops to operate directly under Allawi and not directly under there command. There is no mention that they did not allow UN security forces in Iraq.
| quote: | | What can the UN do? |
Accept the Arab troops into the current security forces it currently operates in Iraq perhaps?
| quote: | | Land a few thousand troops into the region without a clear understanding of their role to operate besides US forces who vastly outnumber them? |
You are skirting the issue again. There is a clear role for them - to guard UN missions. There are current UN secruity missions in Iraq that Arab troops could be integrated into. They could be used to help guard elections, embassies, diplomats, aid workers, etc, there is a lot of UN missions they could play a role in that are currently operating inside Iraq that do not contradict any understanding with the USA.
| quote: |
You'd then have multiple armies acting in Iraq with no coordination between them leading to a situation fraught with chaos. No country is going to send troops into Iraq in such a chaotic condition without a clear command structure, and how that command is to interact with the American forces. |
Its quiet clear, I don't know why you don't get it.
Arabs would have operate under current UN security forces and US and Allies would continue to operate under current Coalition of the Willing forces.
Again, the rejection of an Arab offer for security force contributions to the UN should be blamed on the UN, not the US.
A rejection of an Arab offer for security force contributions to the US, should be blamed on the US.
The former is what happened, but the latter is where you are placing the blame. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
If you want to call them troops then you are right. But if you want to call them what the UN calls them, peackeepers, or security forces then you are wrong. Lets not play a word game here to skirt the issue.
The UN does have security forces today in Iraq under its own direct control - Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
|
No there is no UN command structure in place that is distinct from US control. There is a "multinational force" in Iraq with UN "authorized" troops, such as Japan, however, all these forces are under direct US command.
| quote: |
It wasn't under my impression that the Saudis were NOT forced by the UN to contribute troops. From the article I understood they OFFERED troops to the UN.
|
Your statement was, "Seems stupid to me. If Kofi wanted Arab troops in there he could have gotten them in there." Koffi clearly cannot get Arab troops if he simply "wanted" to because clearly the US can (and has) vetoed such an offer as it did in this situation. The deal breaker being that the Arab troops are to be under US overall command.
| quote: |
So we agree on your second premise. Why'd you even go mention the second premise then?! :conf:
|
You lost me here ...
| quote: |
Wrong the US refused to allow troops to operate directly under Allawi and not directly under there command. There is no mention that they did not allow UN security forces in Iraq.
|
Let's see, I said: "Those muslim countries offered to send troops under that mandate and under UN command not US command ... the US refused the offer"
From the article:
"The Saudis proposed that the new force work under direct UN control. But the United States and the Iraqi government balked"
| quote: |
Accept the Arab troops into the current security forces it currently operates in Iraq perhaps?
|
UN authorized troops operate under US command.
| quote: |
You are skirting the issue again. There is a clear role for them - to guard UN missions. There are current UN secruity missions in Iraq that Arab troops could be integrated into. They could be used to help guard elections, embassies, diplomats, aid workers, etc, there is a lot of UN missions they could play a role in that are currently operating inside Iraq that do not contradict any understanding with the USA.
|
If the US was amenable to arab troops under UN command than why did the US balk?
| quote: |
Its quiet clear, I don't know why you don't get it.
Arabs would have operate under current UN security forces and US and Allies would continue to operate under current Coalition of the Willing forces.
Again, the rejection of an Arab offer for security force contributions to the UN should be blamed on the UN, not the US.
A rejection of an Arab offer for security force contributions to the US, should be blamed on the US.
The former is what happened, but the latter is where you are placing the blame. |
What article are you reading? The article clearly states that Arab countries would be willing to send peacekeepers under the control of the UN. The US and the Iraqis vetoed that offer. The Arab countries then offer to place the troops under direct Iraqi control. Allawi said ok and the US rejected that offer. The US is rejecting the troop offer. Yet you somehow paradoxically place blame on the UN under the premise that Koffi Annan should wave the magic wand and poof anybody can send troops to Iraq without any US say-so or supervision. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
No there is no UN command structure in place that is distinct from US control. There is a "multinational force" in Iraq with UN "authorized" troops, such as Japan, however, all these forces are under direct US command.
...
UN authorized troops operate under US command.
|
No you are right. My mistake was in assuming that the UN security forces operate in a seperate protocol - implied in the tone and very subject of the article.
I didn't realize the UN ceded control on those matters and was under the impression that the UN reserved the discretion of who to deploy/employ in its humanitarian missions so I did some investigating:
UN Resolution 1483: http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/...pdf?OpenElement
Which in summary basically says that the UN cedes all operations regarding Iraq to the authority of the US and UK. So every UN operation in Iraq form a legalistic perspective is under the control of the 'Authority' - the US and UK. Hence every UN mission.
And so I have a new argument:
Since Saudia Arabia didn't offer the UN troops. Nor did it offer the US troops. But only offered Iraq troops (and since even Iraq is under the authority of the US offering such troops to anyone but the US) without willing to accept the premise of US control, this offer was nothing but a diplomatic maneouver.
Obviously as you pointed out the US does not want to open a second command structure in Iraq - to have two armies so to speak in one land as you put it earlier. And the UN agrees with this, it surrendered all its authority to the US and UK.
There is no legalistic way the Arabs can put in forces into Iraq without recongizing the authority unless they pass a new UN resolution.
You are right, the blame here is not with the UN (unless of course you argue Koffi is to pass a resolution giving the UN it power back in Iraq), instead I revert to place blame in my traditional political group - the Arabs:D |
|
|
| smokeape |
The Arab refusal to send in any troops to Iraq speaks volumes about their own desires in the region. Apparently, they're all afraid to confront Islamic fundamentalists unless, like Saudi, their own government is being threatened internally. My take on it. Oh, forgot about mentioning the UN as the most ineffectual organization on earth which needs to move its headquarters to Paris, France.
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| .montecarlo. |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
The Arab refusal to send in any troops to Iraq speaks volumes about their own desires in the region. Apparently, they're all afraid to confront Islamic fundamentalists unless, like Saudi, their own government is being threatened internally. My take on it. Oh, forgot about mentioning the UN as the most ineffectual organization on earth which needs to move its headquarters to Paris, France.
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
they didn't refuse, they offered... on the condition that they're not subject to US command. which is reasonable, considering what happened to the Arabs during/after WW1. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by .montecarlo.
they didn't refuse, they offered... on the condition that they're not subject to US command. which is reasonable, considering what happened to the Arabs during/after WW1. |
Thats not an offer. You can't offer the UN peacekeepers in Iraq unless you except the premise they are under USA command.
It is like offering to help change the tire on your Ford explorer so long as your car isn't a Ford. |
|
|
| .montecarlo. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Thats not an offer. You can't offer the UN peacekeepers in Iraq unless you except the premise they are under USA command. |
how is it not an offer? is it inconceivable to have some troops under UN command to support their efforts there? i think there's a significant lack of trust in the US, so why would they want to serve under them? |
|
|
|
|
