| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| THE U.N.’S POWER GRAB IN IRAQ |
| 2004-05-06 |
| WITHIN the next week or so, the United Nations’ special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, is expected to unveil his plan for handling the transition in Baghdad. How America and its Coalition allies react to that plan could determine not only the future of democracy in Iraq but also the fate of President Bush’s strategy for a new Middle East. Judging by his statements so far, Brahimi is expected to ask that the United Nations be recognized as the brain of the Iraq project, while the U.S.-led Coalition provides the muscle, and the money. The United Nations would not only pick the members of the transition government but would also dictate their mission. And, again, it would be the U.N., not the Coalition, that would decide the modalities of the general election planned for next year. The U.N. would also dicate the principles around which a new constitution is written. For weeks, Brahimi and his aides have talked about the need for a "broadly based" authority in Baghdad to represent the restoration of Iraqi national sovereignty. That is based on two false assumptions. The first is that the Iraq Governing Council is not representative enough. In fact, the council is a broadly based authority that, with the exception of the Ba’ath, includes all political forces - from Communists to Monarchists, with liberals, democrats, social democrats and Islamists. The council has been endorsed by virtually all of Iraq’s religious, tribal, social and community leaders. The only way that the United Nations can pro- duce a more broadly based authority is by including the Saddamites. The United Nations has always resented the fact that it was not consulted in the Governing Council’s formation. Later, the council made itself even less popular with the U.N. crowd by leaking information about alleged U.N. involvement in corrupt practices linked to the Oil-for-Food program. Last year, the United Nations instructed its staff in Iraq to keep their contacts with the Governing Council (whose members were branded "quislings" working for "the occupying powers") to a minimum. The second false assumption behind the United Nations’ position on Iraq is that the country has somehow lost its sovereignty, which must now be restored by Annan and Brahimi. That is a strange view, especially coming from the United Nations - under whose rules a nation, even if occupied by foreign powers, does not lose its sovereignty. The United Nations’ Security Council reiterated that fact in Resolution 1511, unanimously passed earlier this year. The issue, therefore, is not Iraqi sovereignty but the powers needed to exercise it in an effective way. Right now those powers are mainly exercised by the Coalition Provisional Authority and not the Governing Council. To transfer those powers to the United Nations, rather than an effective Iraqi transitional authority, would not change the reality on the ground. In normal life, he who pays the piper sets the tune. Now, however, the United Nations is demanding that America and its allies should bear the cost of rebuilding Iraq (both in terms of lives lost in combating insurgents and terrorists, and taxpayers’ money to the tune of over $100 billion), but have virtually no say in deciding the direction the Iraqi transition should take. The talk at the United Nations is that Kofi (Annan) is getting Dubya off the Iraqi hook on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, and that all America should do is show gratitude. Bringing in the United Nations has become something of a refrain for all those, from France’s President Jacques Chirac to U.S. presidential hopeful John Kerry, who have no clue on Iraq, and little interest in that nation’s future. But giving the U.N. the leading role in Baghdad could be a recipe for disaster for all concerned, starting with the Iraqi people. There is no guarantee that, once Iraq becomes a U.N. "problem," the American public would have any incentive in accepting further sacrifices in rebuilding a distant nation whose people would be regarded as ungrateful, if not downright unfriendly. And without a massive American political, military and financial commitment, Iraq would have little chance of building a stable political system as part of a broader, long-term democratization program. The country could fall apart, be plunged into sectarian violence or, worse still, see another despotic regime emerge in Baghdad. The impact of failure in Iraq on the region cannot be overestimated. Democratic aspirations throughout the Middle East would suffer a strategic setback, while a new era of instability could threaten energy resources vital to the global economy. Failure in Iraq could encourage the mood of radicalism that has generated the most deadly forms of terrorism the world has witnessed. It could also trigger a new race towards the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms, throughout the region. Iraq needs wholehearted American commitment at all levels for years to come. Building democracy in the Middle East, starting with Iraq, is neither a luxury nor a form of do-goodism. The stakes are high and the investment of political energy and money, not to speak of lives, in Iraq is worth making from the point of view of U.S. national security. This is what President Bush said last November: "The establishment of a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed for the global democratic revolution." How true. To succeed in Iraq, America must stay in the driver’s seat, not as an occupying power but as an ally working closely with a representative transitional authority until a freely elected government is in place. Even then, such a government would still need U.S. support for years to come, just as did the governments of liberated Western Europe and Japan after the Second World War. All this does not mean that the United Nations has no role to play. It can help organize and supervise the elections, and provide a range of services through specialized agencies such as UNICEF and WHO. A new Security Council resolution, committing the U.N. to rebuilding Iraq as a democratic state, could also be useful in diplomatic and political terms. If Iraq is abandoned to the United Nations, be sure that the United States will have to return and fight another war in the Middle East within just a few years. The 2003 Iraq war of liberation had to be fought because America and its allies shrunk from finishing the 1991 war once they’d liberated Kuwait. Had the U.S.-led coalition marched on Baghdad in 1991 to depose Saddam Hussein and install a pluralist regime, the 2003 war would not have been necessary. With strategic success in Iraq within grasp, it would be dangerous for America to let tactical fears dictate policy, and thus allow history to repeat itself. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #7 President Bush has already said that the UN will have no control of nor say in the disposition of American taxpayers' money. Further, since Brahimi is an Sunni antiSemite and the UN is desperate to try and bury the Oil for Food investigation, there is no doubt that anything he offers other than advice on elections will be flawed. Hopefully President Bush will thank him for his advice and do what needs to be done anyway. At some point the State Department needs to be told to go away until the military has made the place secure. Most of the difficulties we've encountered over there could have been, if not prevented, at least ameliorated by a unity of purpose in the command structure. The striped pants boys are just a little too nuanced, too "it depends on what the meaning of is is", to deal with the hard boys in an effective fashion. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-05-06 11:48:43 PM |
| #6 Letting the UN into Iraq will be like letting the buzzards in on the wounded. They cut and run at the first signs of trouble, then they come back for the spoils when it is safe for them to do so. This whole UN thing sickens me to the core. We went to them in the beginning and France and Co blew us out of the water, because they were at the trough and they had their hands in the till. We may not shoot at them, but the UN and France are not our friends, they are enemies to us, and to Iraq. Do not forget Iraq in this. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-05-06 11:44:35 PM |
| #5 Screw the Arabs -- Bush needs to go on TV and explain to -us- how he's not going wobbly. |
| Posted by: someone 2004-05-06 11:09:14 PM |
| #4 Brahimi and Fallujah and Sadr and Shitstani. I have no access so I do not know what's going on. What I do know is that the handling of these situations, all qualifying as true pivot point issues, make little or no sense from my POV. I'm sure there are wheels within wheels, where the Mad Mullahs and others enter overriding equations, but I see precious little to be happy about. Having been properly upbraided by Hank earlier today, I'll let it go at that. We'll see. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-06 11:08:00 PM |
| #3 Let the UN make a proposal and let the GC reject it. Whatever it is, it will be a very bad idea. |
| Posted by: Phil_B 2004-05-06 11:06:03 PM |
| #2 Judging by his statements so far, Brahimi is expected to ask that the United Nations be recognized as the brain of the Iraq project,.. Given the revelations so far with the oil-for-food UN scandal, entrusting the UN to run the show can't be a very reassuring thought. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-05-06 11:05:00 PM |
| #1 The UN can call their role whatever they wish. It is highly doubtful that the UN will be allowed to administer US funds or give orders to US forces. Any initiative that the UN takes and wishes us to back up will be negotiable. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-06 10:57:41 PM |