Sunday, Apr 20, 2003
Sunday, Apr 20, 2003 |
| International | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By Sridhar Krishnaswami
And the apprehension in the Council is that the U.S. and its allies like Britain and Spain should not find themselves in the same kind of acrimonious debate and split witnessed in the run-up to the conflict in Iraq. In fact, Mexico, President of the Security Council for this month, is making the point that it is critical to bring about unity and is hopeful that a dialogue will still be possible in spite of the sharp contrasting views on the subject. And the U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has argued that it is vital for the Council to stay away from recriminations and start being a relevant player again. In some ways, the U.S. President, George W Bush's call this Wednesday for the lifting of sanctions came as a surprise to diplomats in New York only because it came so soon after the military operations. To the Republican administration it was another case of the President fulfilling his promise to the Iraqi people; but there is some concern that Mr. Bush is again keen on challenging the United Nations. The strident tones in New York and elsewhere on the lifting of sanctions — that this is not going to be done at the whims and fancies of the Bush administration — has prompted officials here to express surprise that the very nations calling for an end to sanctions all along are now opposing it. What Washington conveniently side-steps is why countries like France and Russia are against rushing to the lifting of punitive measures — the bottom line is who is now in charge of Iraqi oil and therefore in control of reconstruction. Significantly, Washington in recent weeks has not been saying that if the U.N. does not want to get involved in the reconstruction of Iraq, the U.S. is perfectly capable of going about on its own. What is becoming clear is that while the administration may find it feasible to get short term money from Congress for the start of reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq, the longer term projects are going to involve billions of dollars — $100 billions according to one estimate over a 10-year period — and the financing for this would have to come out from the sale of Iraqi oil.
Call for expanded role
Several members of the Security Council have called for an expanded role for the U.N. in the post-conflict phase in Iraq, similar to what the world body's role was in Afghanistan. The fact remains that Washington and New York are going round in circles — the U.N. wants a `central' role; the Bush administration talks of the world forum playing a `vital' role without defining what the term means. Seen in a different perspective, the Republican administration may even `tolerate' the U.N. playing a major role in reconstruction but it would have the Security Council nowhere near the evolving political scheme of things. That there are a maze of legal issues to be sorted out prior to the lifting of the Iraqi sanctions is something that everyone is aware of. But in the immediate context, all attention is on the Security Council's first job of extending Mr. Annan's 45-day mandate on the humanitarian aspect of the Oil-for-Food programme which expires on May 12. The thinking is that the Council will give a brief extension until June 3 when this year's six-month phase of the programme comes to an end.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
