The bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad three years ago

[bigtree]

IRAQ: Three years after attack, UN soldiers on

20 Aug 2006 17:18:39 GMT
Source: IRIN

BAGHDAD, 20 August (IRIN) - The bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad three years ago on 19 August and the UN's subsequent retreat from Iraq has hampered its ability to help the country, some Iraqis believe.

The UN special envoy to Iraq, Ashraf Qazi, said in a statement to the press that while the UN remains concerned about the security situation, he believes the people of Iraq want to make the political transition a success.

"Iraqis believe that UN has a vital role to play in assistance to the population, on the political transition and help in building a better country," Qazi said.

However, with Iraq having just experienced its most deadly month since the start of the occupation, the international community, represented by the UN, has much to answer for.

full report: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/5afea234fd622359db9f715643f3f7c3.htm


If Iraq is key to Bush's 'terror war' . . . we're losing (8-20-2006)

[Kagemusha]

1. Answer for? What did they expect the UN to do there?

Get their people killed and kidnapped and achieve nothing?

[bigtree]

2. not in that way

they have to answer the question of whether its members (international leaders by extention) are really commited to stopping violence.

Kentuck asked a good question here about why the UN moved so fast to end the Lebanon assaults and not the UN

[Kagemusha]

3. So FAST? The UN got delayed so long by the US.

The UN never got traction in Iraq because the US set up the CPA to run it (which as far as the US is legally concerned, was then the legal government of Iraq - see the recently tossed out contractor fraud lawsuit ruling). The US wasn't going to permit the UN any significant role in Iraq. The US had better priorities than making sure that UN facilities were stiffly guarded (normally the UN would guard its own or something but, the "Coalition" had to be in charge of absolutely everyone official with weapons in Iraq in those days) before the bombing of the UN structure that's kept wise UN member nations from sending their people to Iraq under the UN banner, and so on and so forth.

It's simple. The US has a veto on the Security Council to keep the UN out of its hair. In Iraq, the UN is out of the US' hair. End of story. With Lebanon, the US eventually found the UN to be useful for its own diplomatic and strategic interests. Eventually. Grudgingly. And I don't think the US is at all satisfied with the results. Something about the French refusing to put lots of warm bodies on the line.