EFL
UNITED NATIONS — Secretary-General Annan believes it will take about 17 international troops to protect one U.N. worker. However, there are no volunteers for the job.
Surprise, surprise.
At a luncheon with the 15 ambassadors of the Security Council yesterday, Mr.Annan, according to participants at the lunch, said the U.N. would need more than 5,000 troops to protect an estimated staff of 300, if it ever decides to return to Iraq.
Guess they're not coming back then. So sad.
The number of troops cited by Mr. Annan sounded high even to some members of the secretary-general's team, who said that they had not heard that figure in previous assessments on the U.N. security need in Iraq. Saudi Arabia's idea for an Islamic force fizzled yesterday as Iraq's president, Ghazi al-Yawer, the Arab League, and Mr. Annan raised doubts about the practicalities of deploying such a force. Also, several key Arab and Muslim states, including Egypt, Pakistan, and Malaysia, explicitly declared they would not send any troops to Iraq. This leaves the U.N. no choice but to rely, at least for now,on the existing coalition in Iraq, with the 138,000 American troops at its core.
Kofi, you really think we're gonna divert 5,000 troops just to cover your sorry ass?
American envoy John Danforth told The New York Sun the American-led coalition would do the job "on an interim basis." "But our view is that this really is international responsibility."
"The world needs a reminder of how effective blue helmets are, ASAP."
At the U.N., the collapse of the Saudi option was met with a shrug. "If the Saudi idea is comes off, terrific," the British ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, told the Sun. "If it doesn't, who else is going to provide a presence?" Indicating it was time to move on, he said there are negotiations with "a number of countries. Some have shown more interest than others."
Get to work, Kofi. |