Re: The consequences of invasion (fwd)

Much more serious I thimk is the proposal - every time, vide Kosovo -
that the UN come and pick up the pieces and bail the US out , AND
legitimize its  military occupation [eg still of Kosovo] after the US or
Nato under the Us has gone in some place on it own and made a shambles
and left a mess. I recall writing while the NATO WAR ON YUGOSLAVIA,
misnamed Kosovo, was still gong on to WARN against that and to take UN
action before and outside of the US veto etc. by doing it through the
General Assembly, as the GA should have sent an intervention force to Iraq
before the Ameicans arived to prevent what happened. It should not be
acceptable for any normal peron that the UN peacekeeping  mission be
destroyed by the US, but that the US then turns around to have the UN do
some housekeeping for the US. The hight of hypocracy was Bush going to the
UN and telling it that it will loose its legitimacy if it does not
underwrite a US war, when the UN Charter and organization , and
especially that of the  Security Council, is TO KEEP THE PEACE, not to
make war.

gunder frank

 Tue, 22 Jul 2003 Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:

> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:53:12 -0400
> From: Threehegemons@aol.com
> To: bstremli@binghamton.edu, wsn@csf.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: The consequences of invasion (fwd)
> 
> In a message dated 7/22/2003 1:27:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>bstremli@binghamton.edu writes:
> > What are the alternatives?  What has been> discussed by no one as yet, as 
>far as I know, is the likelihood of a UN> resolution which will replace US 
>troops with international peacekeepers,> and further, the likelihood that such 
>an outcome will be successful in> stabilizing the situation.  Perhaps if 
>Iraqis are granted self-government> now, and peacekeepers are introduced into 
>sensitive and border areas, the> mess precipitated by Bush can be contained 
>and gradually cleaned up.> Failing that, I don't see much of a future for a > 
>UN-administered> operation, either.
> T. Ganesh made such a claim a couple of days ago.  I don't think its very 
>plausible.  UN peacekeepers in the narrow sense are just about out of the 
>question--they enter only if there has been a negotiated cease-fire, which is 
>clearly not the case here.  The UN might be able to create an ad-hoc 
>coalition--India, Russia, France, etc to send troops, but none of those 
>countries (who would play a role in shaping UN policy) want much to be in 
>Iraq, and would face considerable political costs if they should decide to do 
>so.  Furthermore, while the New York Times is recommending turning this over 
>to the UN, I don't think the hawks are at all interested in doing so.  They 
>would dread doing so on principle; perhaps also some of the claims of the 
>anti-war movement that the US has specific agendas for post-war Iraq (dollar 
>friendly, Israel friendly, etc) are true and the US does not want to discard 
>that agenda.  Furthermore, Kofi Annan is calling for the US involvement in 
>Liberia, and the hawks, never sympathetic to such missions and worried about 
>the overextension of the US army as things stand, are trying to nix such an 
>option.  Would US involvement in Liberia (increasingly looking like a very 
>messy situation) be part of a quid pro quo for UN involvement in Iraq?
> Steven Sherman  
> 




    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

               ANDRE    GUNDER      FRANK

Senior Fellow                                      Residence
World History Center                    One Longfellow Place
Northeastern University                            Apt. 3411
270 Holmes Hall                         Boston, MA 02114 USA
Boston, MA 02115 USA                    Tel:    617-948 2315
Tel: 617 - 373 4060                     Fax:    617-948 2316
Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/     e-mail:franka@fiu.edu

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~