| |
The UN should just say
'no'
By Phyllis Bennis
(Posted with permission from Foreign
Policy in Focus)
The Bush administration's
recent draft United Nations resolution proposing a new
role for the UN in Iraq would be a welcome step if it
were done to help improve the lives of Iraqi citizens.
But the reassessment is not a reflection of any concern
regarding the illegality of the occupation, the lack of
legitimacy of the US presence in Iraq, or the impact on
Iraqis of Washington's abject failure to provide for
even the minimal humanitarian needs of the population.
Instead, it reflects a growing concern regarding what
the New York Times called the "high cost of occupation"
for the US in Iraq - costs both in US soldiers' lives
and in dollars.
The high price in dollars is
being paid by US taxpayers as the administration of
President George W Bush is planning an emergency request
of US$60 billion to $70 billion to cover current
fighting and reconstruction costs. This follows $79
billion that was released in April. The beneficiaries
are corporations close to the Bush administration,
notably Halliburton and Bechtel, which are earning
billions of dollars.
The high price in lives is
being paid by US troops assigned to state-building
duties for which they have no training, by translators
and other Iraqis working with and for the US occupation
authorities, and by UN humanitarian staff who are seen
as working under or within the US occupation structure.
The highest price in lives is paid by Iraqi civilians,
both in armed attacks and as a result of the lack of
sufficient clean water, electricity and medical care.
The current proposal under consideration calls
for the creation of a UN-endorsed multilateral military
force to join the US occupation force in Iraq. It would
function as a separate, parallel force with a separate
command structure, but the commander would be an
American. US officials make clear their intention that
the multilateral force would be accountable to the
Pentagon's strategic control. There is a history of this
kind of US control of UN peacekeeping operations through
imposing a US general or admiral as UN commander. This
was US practice during the Bill Clinton administration
in Somalia, Haiti, and elsewhere.
But what is
unprecedented is that the plan does not envisage
Washington even sharing authority and decision-making
with the UN itself or with the governments sending
international contingents, let alone ending its
occupation and turning over full authority to the UN to
oversee a rapid return to Iraqi independence.
A
number of countries, facing US pressure, might be
prepared to send troops with a new UN resolution
providing an international imprimatur. US officials have
actually described a new UN resolution's value as
providing "political cover" to governments wanting to
participate but restrained by public opposition.
Countries under particular pressure to send troops
include Pakistan, Turkey and India.
It is likely
that many members of the Security Council might be
willing to cave in to such pressure. Any resolution,
however, would also have to win approval from Russia,
Germany, and especially France - which have made
positive remarks about the resolution but are likely to
demand more control for the Security Council over the
mission. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin
said that "the eventual arrangements cannot just be the
enlargement or adjustment of the current occupation
forces. We have to install a real international force
under a mandate of the United Nations Security Council."
The new UN resolution also encourages other
countries to contribute funds, as well as troops, to the
US occupation. A donors' conference is scheduled for
late October in Spain, a key US ally. If a UN resolution
is passed before that date with little acrimony in the
Security Council, new amounts of financial support will
be forthcoming.
What should be
done
Any new UN resolution aimed at providing
more legitimacy for the US-UK occupation of Iraq should
be opposed. Countries should not send troops or funds to
maintain or strengthen or "internationalize"
Washington's occupation.
Oppose Richard Perle's
claim that "our main mistake is that we haven't
succeeded in working closely with Iraqis before the war
so that an Iraqi opposition could have been able to
immediately take the matter in hand". Instead, the
over-reliance of the Bush administration on the claims
of the exiled Iraqi opposition, driven by self-interest
and ideological fervor rather than grounded information,
is one of the main reasons for the US failure to
anticipate the postwar crisis in Iraq.
Only
after the US-UK occupation has ended should the UN and a
multilateral peacekeeping force return to Iraq. Their
mandate should be for a very short and defined period,
with the goal of assisting Iraq in reconstruction and
overseeing election of a governing authority.
As
belligerent powers who initiated the war, and as
occupying powers, the United States and the United
Kingdom are required to provide for the humanitarian
needs of the Iraqi people. While their military
occupation should be ended immediately, Washington and
London remain obligated to pay the continuing costs of
Iraq's reconstruction, including the bulk of the cost of
UN humanitarian and peacekeeping deployments. The US
should immediately make public a realistic estimate for
the cost of reconstruction in Iraq.
Washington
should turn over funds to UN authority, beginning with a
direct grant of at least $75 billion (the initial amount
spent on waging the war) for reconstruction work. These
funds should be raised from an excess-profits tax on
corporations benefiting from the war and postwar
privatization in Iraq, as well as from Pentagon budget
lines initially aimed at carrying out war in Iraq.
The United States should use this moment to
reverse its longstanding opposition to the creation of a
standing UN rapid-reaction military force, beginning
with reconstituting the UN Charter-mandated Military
Staff Committee.
Phyllis Bennis
(pbennis@compuserve.com)
is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and
writes regularly for Foreign Policy in Focus.
(Posted with permission from Foreign
Policy in Focus)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
