Kucinich calls for UN to replace US in Iraq, US to give up contracts

[dpbrown]

7/28/2003

Kucinich Calls for U.N. to Replace U.S. In Iraq

In statements from his Congressional office and on the campaign trail, Kucinich continued today to advocate that U.N. peacekeeping forces replace U.S. troops in Iraq....

Kucinich said today: "This weekend, with the deaths of 5 US troops, we were once again reminded of the dangers facing US troops in what has become a quagmire. To date 243 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. It is time that the United States begins the process of withdrawing our troops, and allow a UN peacekeeping force to take over the reconstruction of Iraq.

"In their rush to war, the Administration failed to adequately prepare for the post-invasion period. Negotiations for an exit must begin now. An exit agreement with the United Nations must involve the US letting go of the contracting process.

"The UN must also take over management, accounting and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. Additionally, a transition from UN control to self- determined governing structure by and for the Iraqi people must be planned. Finally, the Administration, which unwisely ordered the bombing, must fund the reconstruction."

http://www.kucinich.us

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. this is exactly why i support Kucinich!!! GO KUCINICH!!!

[gully]

2. Can we do this legally?

Given the Geneva Convention and all? :shrug:

Also how will this go over with yesterdays bombing? Things are becoming so complicated...

[dpbrown]

3. I'm not aware of any Geneva Convention difficulties

Do you have any in mind?

As I understand the Geneva Convention (my understanding might be flawed), it governs, essentially, how to fight a war and how to treat prisoners.

I'm not aware of any restrictions in it that would prevent the UN from taking over the protection of Iraq while the Iraqis go about choosing a government and setting up services again.

The UN has determined that the US/Britain are "occupying forces" in charge of the well-being of Iraq (this would be, I think, separate from any obligations under the Geneva Convention). The UN can determine then, to supplant the US in Iraq as well.

But I'd be interested in finding out what you think might bar this solution under the Geneva Convention.

[gully]

6. The US is legally responsible which is part of the reason

Bush's move was so suspect and reckless. This is my understanding. I'll do some research later. I'm off to lunch with a friend.

[dpbrown]

8. Legally responsible applies to monetary responsibility

As you'll notice, Kucinich covers that by acknowledging that the US must continue to contribute to the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure destroyed by the US military invasion of Iraq.

The US can give up control of Iraq to the UN without being allowed to escape responsibility for helping Iraq rebuild. The US military should not be in control of Iraq, however, and US companies like Halliburton should be forced to give up the contracts they got just because the US was an occupying power.

[donsu]

4. Go Kucinich! and double your security.

nt

[Doctor_J]

5. Not feasible

is it? After snubbing the UN during the drive to invasion, can we just say, "OK, we're out of here. We'll probably be needing you in NK soon"? And if Haliburton doesn't get all the money from the reconstruction, what will happen to the economy?

Don't think this is likely, though it is a nice thought.

[dpbrown]

7. As Kucinich says, the US must pay

And I think that's the only thing the UN would be worried about. The US caused the damage, and used their occupation of Iraq to give corrupt US multinationals like Halliburton unbid contracts that not only allow it to feed on the corpse of Iraq, but also to loot even more money out of the pockets of US taxpayers.

The UN has already named the US/UK "occupying forces" in charge of Iraq's wellbeing. I don't think there's anything inherently less feasible about turning over the protection of Iraq to the UN under these conditions.

The main problem, and the main reason (in my mind) that US soldiers will continue to die in Iraq is to keep Halliburton's contracts intact, and keep draining money out of Iraq. And that's a key part of the reason why the US should not be allowed to continue its occupation.

As Kucinich says, the US companies, like Halliburton, that have looting contracts solely on the basis of being able to ride in behind the military to get un-bid contracts, should lose them - and Iraq should, as part of its own rebuilding process, be able to make new contracts with whomever they choose - while the US continues to assist Iraq monetarily to clean up the infrastructure damage it caused the country.

If another nation invaded the US, we'd want them out, now. We'd also insist on renegotiating any contracts the invading country took to get at our resources. I don't see how we can expect some other country to submit to something we'd refuse to submit to ourselves.

As far as I'm concerned, Dennis Kucinich is right on in his approach to Iraq - immediate exit strategy, and giving up all contracts.