Bringing the United Nations Back In
There will be anti-War protests in the coming month, as the 3-year anniversary of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq approaches.
I think it is time to demand a timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq. I suspect a majority of Iraqi parliamentarians want that. The Sunni Arabs demand it. The Sadrists demand it. It is time. Saying that the guerrillas would take advantage of a timetable, given the carnage we saw on Monday (see below) is frankly silly. They are taking advantage of the current situation. We have to create a new situation, with which they might be happier so that they stop blowing things up. Staying this course is untenable.
But that step will not necessarily resolve the crisis.
I think the peace movement has a real opportunity here to make a push for much heavier United Nations involvement in Iraq. I say, let's make up placards calling on Kofi Annan to get involved, and calling on Bush to let the UN come in in a big way, with proper protection.
Here are the advantages:
1. The United Nations has political legitimacy in the Middle East. American unilateralism does not. The guerrillas would be humiliated to deal with Bush, who crushed them and marginalized them. They would be more likely to treat with the UN.
2. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has demanded greater UN involvement, and he has enormous authority with the Shiite majority.
3. No country is going to send troops to Iraq under a United States military command. There has to be a United Nations peace-enforcing command. Once that exists, it might become an umbrella for Arab League troops, e.g. Cheney was told as much when he was in Cairo, according to the Arabic press.
I.e., by keeping out the UN, the Bush administration is guaranteeing that it is mainly American (and British) blood and treasure that is spilt in Iraq for years to come.
4. If the United Nations could be mobilized to help Iraq through the coming years of instability and help shepherd it to independence from the US and UK, it would help to strengthen international, multilateral organizations generally and contribute to an institutionalization of international law.
5. The permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as all UN member states, have a keen interest in the fate of Iraq and the Gulf. They should be encouraged to deploy some of their treasure (and probably some blood) for the common benefit of Iraqis and the world.
6. The peace movement will be more credible if it has a program other than simple US withdrawal from Iraq. The US public is aware that an Iraq in flames at the head of the oil-rich Gulf could have a horrible impact on the US itself. A demand that the Iraq situation be internationalized is a responsible way of getting the US out, getting Iraq out of Bush's incompetent hands, and helping Iraqis move forward.
7. Bush invaded Iraq in part in order to destroy the United Nations. Forcing him to bring it in to Iraq would be a blow against American unilateralism and rightwing American aggression for decades to come.
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/21/2006 12:33:00 AM
|
Facebook
16 Comments:
I think that there was an opportunity for the UN to help in Iraq during the first months after the US/UK invasion. But from reading various blogs it is clear to me that the UN has been completely discredited in Iraq. This is due to different reasons :
1) The Iraqis didn't forget about the long UN sanctions, which the US refused to lift. The UN is favorably seen by the Palestinians, but not that much by the Iraqis.
2) After the invasion, there has been psy-ops in Iraq in order to discredit the UN and prevent her from leading the democraticization process : the Chalabi clique and the neocons are both responsible for it.
3) The US used the scandal of the Oil for food program in order to discredit the UN action and to intimidate its leaders and high ranking employees. When you compare the sums involved in this UN scandal to the billions of aid money still unaccounted by Bremer and the successive puppet governments of Iraq you have to laugh.
4) Double standards : The Iraqis are still paying millions of compensation to Kuwait for their 1991 invasion. This is just, because they were the aggressor. But then what about the US/UK invasion of Iraq ? Kofi Annan clearly stated that the invasion wasn't legitimate second international law, yet, the US/UK were able to get an "after the fact resolution", more or less legitimizing their actual presence (at least untill the elections were hold).
Now for the UN herself. She has been deeply affected by the death of Sergio Vieja De Mello and by the arrogant attitude of the US administration. She resents the continual attempt of the US to use the UN structures as their tool (think Bremer and Bolton and the neocons continual attacks). In this context of US pressures and Iraqis hostility, why would the UN employees be willing to return to Iraq, without a complete change of the context ?
IMO, the only way to bring the UN back to Iraq is if she acts second international law and bring an end to double standards. To regain her credibility with the Iraqis, she has to condemn the US/UK invasion. Bush and Blair should be brought to trial and all the countries who participated in the war should be hold responsible and condemned to pay compensation to the Iraqis. After all the US has destroyed their infrastructures, their government and administrative structures, their economy, their lands and agriculture, their orchards.. etc.
U.S. or U.N., either or both, it still sounds like the usual paternalism to me. As I recall, the Iraqis ran their own affairs before March of 2003 and I have no doubt they can do it again once the U.S. and the U.N. (which means John Bolton, let us not forget) find someone else's country to screw up. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis.They can't do any worse running their own lives than the U.S. and U.N. have done trying to ruin them.
Sorry for reminding obvious facts, but with Bolton, after OFFoodgate and during Haririgate, UN is as good as dead in Iraq and in the ME.
Meanwhile, we are supposed to believe that 100% sectarian elections can produce nonsectarian Iraqi government.
UK urges 'united' Iraq government
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has urged Iraqi leaders to form a government of national unity and put aside sectarian interests.
December's election results show "no party, no ethnic or religious grouping can dominate" the Iraqi government, Mr Straw said on a surprise visit.
Juan – I’m delighted to see you return to this, and so emphatically. I recall that you were talking about bringing in the UN
last June . I wrote a short article in October last year for UKWatch (the British arm of ZNet) examining the practicalities of the UN taking over. In short, I absolutely agree that this is the only practical, and indeed the only moral course of action. In my October 05 article I also made the point that the political conditions are right for the anti-war movement to positively campaign for this.
Best wishes, and full support
David Wearing
London, UK
www.democratsdiary.co.uk
This all sounds very sensible, but I doubt the Bush administration will ever agree to it. To do so would be to implicitly admit that their unilateral approach was wrong from the beginning and that they've created a terrible mess. They want things to go badly if and when we pull out; if the UN did a good job and had a positive influence it would undermine the administration's entire approach to foreign policy.
Concerning UN acceptance in Iraq, don't miss that :
Meanwhile, the local Al-Sharqiya television channel reported Tuesday that the United Nations envoy to Baghdad, Asraf Qadi, had escaped a roadside bomb explosion near the western city of Ramadi.
The report said Qadi's convoy was targeted during a visit to the region whereby he met with the provincial governor and his office staff on Monday.
'The bomb exploded near the first vehicle of the convoy which stopped for a while and then went ahead to Baghdad with no casualties or damages,' the report said.
Unless vested with powers vis-a-vis its many member states comparable to those enjoyed by our own federal government vis-a-vis the 50 united states, the UN'd be crazy to take up your offer. (Which isn't to say, though, that the present world-governance set-up, roughly comparable to ours under the old Articles of Confederation, isn't even crazier.)
I remember that India and Pakistan were solicited for providing military aid in Iraq in 2003 and BOTH refused - so yes, I agree that most UN member nations would not want to inherit Bush's mess.
I am wondering if the Arab League would be interested in providing military support, but I am not sure the Iraqis would be very receptive to troops from Egypt and Syria running around issuing orders to Iraqis...
In response to Casey's comment - the REAL justice would be if another Republican administration gets to inherit Iraq - but of course that would also mean a terrible price to pay in domestic devastation of environment, edumacation and civil liberties.
Fine. You have long advocated for UN involvement and made a reasonable case that Arab nations would be interested because stabilizing the region. That makes sense. However, what are we to do with the huge American bases complete with KFC and McDonalds that have been built. The US isn't going to vacate. That is clear. The violence isn't likely to stop while the US remains.
J.Gug.
Unless things have changed in the two years that I've been out of the country, I don't think that the "peace movement" is going to have the opportunity to do anything. We were universally ignored, avoided and generally hated. We convinced no one of anything. The peace movement was a very easily marginalized group, which had no influence or power. Instead of going out and protesting, we would have been better off walking into bars and buying everyone there a beer. The only people that will have any chance of stopping this continued carnage in Iraq are those who are clearly identified as NOT being a part of the peace movement, particularly fed-up Republicans.
Juan, Here's the deal. Only a debacle of historic proportions will unseat the entrenched corporate power in America. We need to let Bush/Cheney/Rummie?Wolfie/Pearlie have their way until the debacle happens. What the hell, it can't get too much worse and then maybe, maybe, it'll get better.
It's great to see at last dawning recognition that the purveyors of death to little kids by depleted uranium and starvation have no more moral authority, no more to contribute, than Japan in China in 1945.
It would be nice if the UN could be helpful, but that is at this point hallucinatory:
1) The League of Nations at least did not approve Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia after the fact, as the UN did with 1546.
2) The UN was the willing instrument of US and UK genocide through sanctions for 12 years. Two human beings, von Sponeck and Dennis Halliday, resigned over it, but Kofi Annan and the UN leadership have not even shown minimal remorse.
3) For these reasons, the UN would be seen as the US imperial flunky it has been these last 15 years, as indeed it is so long as it so reliably rolls over for US bullying.
So forget about it for now.
However, the UN could become a useful contributor if it actually became an upholder of international law in keeping with its Charter, instead of flouting it in order to cover for the bloody crimes of the US in Iraq. It would have to earn the trust of the Iraqi people - first by acknowledging its dishonorable and treacherous conduct in the past, and secondly by taking other steps, such as repudiating 1546, finding the US in violation of the Hague Convention for unilaterally privatizing the Iraqi economy (Order 39), and also of the pertinent Geneva Conventions concerning war against the civilian population, hostage-taking, collective punishment, targeting medical facilities, chemical and radiological warfare, and such like.
This is highly unlikely, to be sure. But that is to say that the UN is highly unlikely to take international law seriously whenever it conflicts with American imperial ambition. And in that case it's highly unlikely that the UN is qualified to do good in Iraq - clearly being unable and unwilling to defend Iraqi independence against its imperial master.
"I think the peace movement has a real opportunity here to make a push for much heavier United Nations involvement in Iraq. I say, let's make up placards calling on Kofi Annan to get involved, and calling on Bush to let the UN come in a big way, with proper protection... The United Nations has political legitimacy in the Middle East. American unilateralism does not. "
The UN has more political legitimacy than the US, I imagine. But I don't think any of the forces in Iraq would be willing to agree in advance to let the UN settle it, with no idea what the settlement would be. Nor would the UN be willing to "come in a big way" without some assurances that it would be accepted and successful.
No resistance forces would be willing to stand down unless the US was irreversibly on its way out. I think the resistance groups will be willing to negotiate publicly with the US if they know that's going to happen.
There would need to be back channel negotiations to get the major political forces to agree to a comprehensive settlement. The US would have to agree to leave and pay a lot. The internal political settlement would be whatever it is. It should include human rights and the rule of law, which is more important than democracy at this point. That is to say the former are conditions precedent for the latter.
At that point the UN comes in and brokers the deal.
The above is oversimplified but I think it could be worked out that way. The big problem is the US.
Or so it seems to me.
Good gawd you Americans are astoundingly arrogant. What makes you think the rest of us in the global community want to take on the responsibility of cleaning up Bush's mess?
Frank Brodhead comment is very interesting. He is very convincing on the need to change the opinion, so that opportunistic Dems leaders stop supporting the "strategy for success" slogan.
On the other hand, most commenters in the rest of the world can see why "Bring the UN in" isn't a realist, nor a credible strategy. So do you really think that this proposal can convince the US Dems leaders ? The multilateralists are well aware of the damages created to the UN, both by the invasion of Iraq and other discrediting PR campaigns, not to speak of the nomination of Bolton.
Concerning the fact that the UN has discretided herself in the Iraq case. Well the UN can only reflect the state of power relationships in the world. So it's very difficult for her to resists to the US imperialism.
It doesn't mean that the rest of the world shouldn't try to bring her nearer to the ideal.
It's not the UN who failed. It's the US who failed to the UN by abandonning the multilateralist aproach she had favored until the end of the cold war.
If after the US debacle in Iraq, the UN is able to come to a fair judgement concerning US condemnation and war compensations to the Iraqis, then she may come out this crisis with a higher standing.
Yet another scary development - now UN officials use Abu Ghraib / Gitmo argumentation.
Deja vu
Inmate is found dead in his cell, not even in the hospital. Autopsy shows heart attack and the fact of improper medical care appears to be certain. Well, this is an equivalent of sophisticated torture!
Now we learn that the court even refused to guarantee the inmate's health, we are supposed to believe that he took all this upon himself! So, what about the Geneva Conventions? Have not we heard all this before?
1. Wiki on the death of Milosevic
2. AJ. Milosevic took 'unprescribed drugs
3. WaPo. ANTHONY DEUTSCH. Milosevic's Son Says Father Was 'Killed'
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the tribunal's strict confidentiality rules, told The Associated Press that the unit's prison warden had told the court that he could no longer guarantee Milosevic's health.
The official said prison authorities repeatedly found banned material in his cell, including alcohol and unprescribed drugs.
Post a Comment
<< Home