Bush and Blair said that the United Nations should play a “vital role” in post-war Iraq:
“We are of course agreed… that there will be a vital role for the United Nations in the reconstruction of Iraq,” Blair said after holding talks with Bush.
Bush used the same words, before spelling out their vision for the two remaining stages after U.S and British forces take administrative control in the immediate aftermath of war.
Analysts are saying that these promises are likely to anger many U.N. countries, especially in Europe, since Bush and Blair only see their role in a humanitarian capacity, as opposed to promising them the wider powers of administration and interim rule.
But shouldn’t they be happy about this? I mean, this lets them off the hook, doesn’t it? All that whining about “imperialism” and “colonialism” – surely they wouldn’t want to take part in what they find so distasteful. Most of Europe gladly let the U.S. and Britain do their dirty work for them so they could keep their hands clean. (Canada has been, too, but that’s besides the point). So why wouldn’t they want to stick to humanitarian aid, while letting the U.S. and Britain sort out the post-war politics and security? That way, U.S. could continue to be the convenient scapegoat it has been all along through this crisis.
Simply put, countries such as France and Belgium feel left out of the party. Before the war started they were absolutely opposed, but now that Chirac’s buddy Saddam shows absolutely no sign of being able to survive this thing, they’ve changed their colours. This isn’t exactly a surprise – everyone predicted it. And Bush and Blair are likely to go along with it at least somewhat in order to gain “legitimacy” in the eyes of the world, and to try to begin to heal the giant rift that has erupted within the United Nations.