| |
Back to the United Nations
By Ehsan Ahrari
A famous
verse from Alfred Tennyson's poem In Memoriam - "Tis
better to have loved and lost than never to have loved
at all" - is so appropriate in describing the conduct of
United States foreign policy in Iraq. Decisions of
strategic import are made and altered regularly because
of recurring setbacks. Yet the frequency of failure does
not seem to be a constraining factor in Washington's
attempts to bring about further changes. The most recent
major volte-face is the decision to involve the
United Nations in persuading the Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani to the American-backed plan of holding
caucuses to choose delegates for an interim national
assembly. For that reason, L Paul Bremer, head of the
Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), paid a highly
publicized visit to meet the Secretary General of the
world body, Kofi Annan, on January 19.
Students
of the evolution of America's policy of invading Iraq
vividly recall President George W Bush's speech of
September 2002 at the United Nations. He challenged the
world and the world body in the following words: "All
the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a
difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council
resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside
without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the
purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
Then, under the threat of French veto of the
then-impending US invasion of Iraq, Washington
implemented its plan without the official sanction of
the world body. That absence of legitimacy has continued
to haunt the American presence in Iraq. Of course, the
disagreement between Washington and the world body has
narrowed since. However, when it came under terrorist
attacks twice last year, the UN withdrew from Iraq and
opted to play a low key role and from a distance.
Now the Bush administration needs the UN more
than ever before. There is no more hyperbole of the
"irrelevance" of the world body. Washington wants not
only the endorsement of its election plan from the UN,
but also its increased presence in rebuilding Iraq.
Sistani's agenda is somewhat different. First,
because he remains suspicious of the plan that Bremer
imposed on the Iraqi Governing Council on November 15
last year about the transfer of sovereignty through
indirect elections. Sistani wants to hear from the
representatives of the world body that his insistence on
holding direct elections in Iraq is, indeed,
logistically impossible to achieve, as Americans are
claiming. Second, Sistani is reported to be keeping an
open mind, and is looking forward to hearing viable
alternatives to direct elections from the UN
representatives. Third, the litmus test of those
alternatives, however, is that they should not, under
any circumstances, sabotage the emergence of a Shi'ite
dominated government in Iraq.
There are
additional realities that are keeping pressure on all
sides - the US, Sistani and the UN - because of which
none of these actors wishes to do anything that would
push the already uncertain conditions in Iraq toward
chaos. The US, aside from logistical problems of holding
direct elections and transfer of sovereignty to an
elected body by June of this year, is quite wary about
the outbreak of violence during that process. By the
same token, Washington is concerned about the emergence
of an Islamist-dominated government. Even though the
Bush administration has begrudgingly accepted the
inescapable reality of the presence of Islam in the
future ruling arrangement in Iraq, it will do everything
to minimize the prospects of the emergence of a hardline
Islamic government. Sistani has no quarrel with the US
on that particular issue, as long as Islam has a
prominent voice and democracy is the modus
operandi in the creation of future government in
Iraq.
The UN's dilemma is that it very much
wants a role - a prominent role to boot - in rebuilding
the Iraqi governmental and societal infrastructures.
However, it remains sensitive to any semblance of being
perceived as a tool of American policy, or as a
legitimizing entity of the American occupation of Iraq.
Annan knows that his credentials are impeccable in the
eyes of Sistani, but he also knows that the credibility
of the world body will be constantly on line from now.
That is precisely why he announced on January 19 to send
a technical mission to study the feasibility of holding
direct elections in Iraq. Only after getting its
independent report will Annan send his own
recommendations to Sistani. In the meantime, a constant
challenge for the UN is to be able to do its own
investigative work in Iraq without having its
representatives getting blown up in the process. The
world body has already lost personnel, including Sergio
Vieira de Mello, the UN secretary general's special
representative to Iraq, and it has no stomach to absorb
further losses.
These dilemmas and uncertainties
notwithstanding, the world has every reason to cheer the
fact that the future of Iraq is in the process being
handed over to the UN, where the will of the
international community is supreme. In this sense, the
future modalities of Iraqi elections and its government
will have the imprimatur of the international community.
That is most likely to be a good omen for the future of
Iraq.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an
Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic
analyst.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
