| |
Iraq: Why the US should let the UN take
over
By Stephen Zunes
(Reposted with permission from Foreign
Policy in Focus)
Four theses on a
campaign that could use opportunities created by the
invasion and occupation of Iraq in a creative way: a
campaign to turn the administration of Iraq over to the
United Nations:
1. A United Nations
administration would be more likely to bring peace and
stability to Iraq.
The United States government
is widely perceived by most Iraqis and other Middle
Easterners as being less interested in the well-being of
the Iraqi people than it is in the advancement of
American political, military, and economic interests in
the region. The apparent eagerness of the United States
to invade Iraq, the gross exaggeration by US officials
of Iraq's military capabilities and its ties to
terrorism, and many of the policies pursued by US
military authorities since the collapse of the Iraqi
government have led many to see the US invasion and
occupation of Iraq not as an act of liberation but an
act of imperialism.
As a result, there is a
growing opposition in Iraq to the US occupation,
including a low-level armed insurgency against US
occupation forces, which has resulted in the deaths of
scores of American servicemen. Most evidence suggests
that these anti-American demonstrations and guerrilla
attacks come not as much from supporters of the old
regime but from ordinary Iraqis who resent a foreign
military occupation of their country. Counter-insurgency
operations by US forces in response have resulted in the
deaths of scores of Iraqi civilians, which has in turn
led to an escalating spiral of violence.
By
contrast, administration by the United Nations - which
represents the entire international community, including
18 Arab states - is less likely to be seen as a foreign
military occupation but rather as a transitional
administration, and is therefore less likely to
encourage armed opposition. Without the disruption of a
growing armed insurgency, efforts at restoring basic
services, maintaining stability, and setting up a
democratic and representative Iraqi government would be
far easier.
The Iraqi government that would
emerge under UN trusteeship would be far more credible,
both inside and outside Iraq, than one set up by US
occupation authorities, which - rightly or wrongly -
would more likely be seen as nothing more than a puppet
regime installed by a foreign army. Should such a
US-backed regime indeed not be seen as legitimate,
popular resistance and instability - which would likely
encourage the rise of radical nationalist and radical
Islamist elements - would probably continue, requiring
the continued presence of US occupation forces for many
years.
2. Turning over control of Iraq to the
UN would be in the best interests of
Americans.
American soldiers continue to die
every week in Iraq. American deaths since the end of
formal hostilities will likely soon surpass those killed
during the war itself. The consultative council
appointed by US occupation forces appears to have little
power or credibility among the population and Iraq
appears to be a long way from genuine self-governance.
It is unlikely that the Bush administration will be able
to bring to power a new Iraqi regime that has the
support of the majority of the Iraqi people.
The
ongoing US occupation of Iraq, particularly the killings
of Iraqi civilians by American soldiers, is resulting in
the growth of anti-American sentiment throughout the
Arab and Islamic world. This could increase the ranks of
extremist groups like the terrorist al-Qaeda network,
whose leaders are now more easily able to portray the
United States as an imperialist power committed to the
conquest and subjugation of Muslim peoples and the
exploitation of the region's natural resources. This
would be far more difficult to do, however, if Iraq were
instead provisionally governed by an international
regime under UN auspices.
The 150,000 American
troops currently deployed in Iraq are causing a shortage
of available personnel for other potential US military
operations, ranging from peacekeeping operations in
Liberia (which could help save that country from a
humanitarian disaster) to challenging real threats to
regional security (such as North Korea, which - unlike
Iraq - really is developing weapons of mass
destruction). In addition, the need for a large number
of reservists to fill the ranks of US occupation forces
are having a detrimental impact on many thousands of
families and businesses back home that depend on them.
In addition, the US occupation is expensive.
Currently, the American taxpayer is paying for more than
85 percent of the costs of the post-war occupation,
peacekeeping, and administration in Iraq. Under UN
leadership, US contributions would be no more than 20
percent, a major savings for the American taxpayer that
would make available funding for badly needed social
services at home, as well as tax relief and deficit
reduction.
3. The United Nations could
succeed in such an effort.
The United Nations,
like other intergovernmental bodies, is an imperfect
organization made up of a large number of governments
with their own distinct national interests. However,
because the UN represents virtually the entire
international community and would be under a clear
mandate to help bring stability and democracy to Iraq,
it is less likely to allow narrow political and economic
interests to shape its decisions.
There have
been both successes and failures in major UN
peacekeeping operations in the past. Most of the
failures have been a result of inadequate funding and
limits placed upon UN peacekeepers' authority, not
anything innately lacking in the United Nations' ability
to carry out its mission.
Rarely has the UN been
called upon to govern an entire nation. The most
clear-cut precedent for a direct UN administration of a
country for a period of time until it was ready for
self-rule involved East Timor. This former Portuguese
colony was under a UN trusteeship for two years between
the withdrawal of Indonesian occupation forces and the
establishment of an independent, democratically elected
government last year. While much smaller than Iraq, East
Timor in many ways presented an even more formidable
challenge: It is one of the poorest countries in the
world, one-third of its population lost their lives in
the initial Indonesian invasion and occupation in the
late 1970s, and much of the country's infrastructure was
destroyed in a scorched-earth policy by Indonesian
occupation forces and their East Timorese collaborators
as they withdrew in September 2000. Despite some
logistical problems, the UN operation in East Timor has
widely been hailed as a major success and the new East
Timorese government has emerged as a strong and
democratic US ally.
Should the Bush
administration decide it does not want any Americans to
stay in Iraq under UN command, it could simply withdraw
US forces and not contribute to the peacekeeping
operations. While the United States is indispensable in
certain kinds of military operations, such as those
requiring rapid power projection, there are more than
adequate forces available for deployment in Iraq from
other UN member states for the peacekeeping and
administrative operations necessary to maintain order
and oversee the transition to a democratic government.
There are quite a few countries, including major Western
European allies, which are currently unwilling to
contribute troops under what they see as an illegal US
occupation, that would be quite ready to submit forces
under a legitimate UN operation.
4. Such a
campaign is winnable.
Public opinion polls
published during the first week of July indicate that 60
percent of the American public believes that the United
Nations should take leadership in post-war Iraq. Not
surprisingly, there is strong support from liberals who
have traditionally been skeptical of US unilateralism
and have supported a stronger role for the United
Nations. However, these is also strong support from some
moderates and conservatives who believe that there
should be greater burden-sharing in the cause of
nation-building and that it should not primarily be
Americans who sacrifice lives and resources to bring
greater freedom and stability to Iraq.
This
could finally lead Democratic members of Congress and
presidential aspirants, who have largely supported the
US invasion and occupation of Iraq, to distance
themselves from the policies of the Bush administration
and join the majority of Americans who support giving
the United Nations the leading role in Iraq. The Bush
administration has been able to get away with its
policies toward Iraq up to this point because only
smaller parties, like the Greens and Libertarians, have
been willing to voice their opposition. With the
Democrats joining a call for turning over administration
and peacekeeping to the United Nations, the Bush
administration would find itself far more isolated
politically than it has been up until now.
The
Bush administration is already finding that popular
support for its policies in post-invasion Iraq is
significantly less than during the actual invasion
itself, particularly given the growing realization by
the American public that they were misled regarding the
threat Saddam Hussein's regime posed to the United
States and the world. There are already concerns among
Republican leaders about facing an election year with
American soldiers coming home from Iraq in body bags
week after week with no clear end in sight.
Bush
administration officials may decide that fighting off
reasonable proposals for a UN administration may call
into question their last remaining credible
rationalization for the invasion: the desire to bring
stability and democracy to Iraq. In insisting that the
United States, not the international community, has the
right to determine the future of Iraq, it would only
increase uncharitable speculation regarding the actual
US motivation for controlling that oil-rich country. The
result could be that the administration may find that it
would be in its favor to cut its losses and acquiesce to
domestic and international pressure.
Stephen Zunes is
Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus
Project (online at www.fpif.org) and
serves as an associate professor of Politics and chair
of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the
University of San Francisco. He is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and
the Roots of Terrorism.
(Reposted with permission from Foreign
Policy in Focus)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
