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 06:33:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
32 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.
Let It Go
Re point 1., if Bush had "crushed" and "marginalized" the Iraqi resistance(s), none of this discussion would be taking place, would it?
He may have tried (that's not entirely clear), but evidently hasn't succeeded, and they have lots of effectives in the field.
This is supposedly despite whatever efforts the US Armed Forces may have made, so how is either a "trained" Iraqi army and police force (whenever they show up) supposed to solve the situation, and however in Heck would UN forces?! They do not have magic powers; in fact, they would have to be provided by members states, and would have to be funded, probably to the tune of $10-40 billion a year (taking a wild guess, even if Halliburton didn't get the contracts.)
Is the UN really able to fund and organize this scale of effort, and would the US bear its 25 percent share? Doesn't seem likely, does it?
The deus ex machina of a UN take-over is a chimera, one which is really unnecessary.
Outsiders seeking to "control" the situation in Iraq is simply untenable. It is also undesireable.
Left to their own devices, the people of Iraq are likely to come to a settlement with minimal bloodshed. If not, it's their blood to shed or not as they choose. That self-choice is the essence of democracy.
Give democracy/self-determination a chance in Iraq. This will probably entail one or more interim governments, as the current waiting-for-Godot-vernment is likely to be swept away in short order without the US military (or by that military), and without much weeping by most Iraqis, who don't really have much invested in it, beyond the photogenic purple digits.
Whoever winds up in charge will need to sell oil, and produce it, and the world market will take it from there. Efforts to over-determine the outcome from abroad will be expensive and eventually fail. Stop trying to solve Iraq's problems, and let the Iraqi people do that. Help like we have been providing they don't need.
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
I have two words that explain why this is unlikely to happen:
John Bolton.
Bush didn't send that guy to the UN to make nice.
You are being logical again. The Bush team only uses skewed logic. And the only reason they will leave Iraq is to deploy troops to "war" on Iran, Syria or North Korea. Unless the American people rise up in huge numbers to protest what they are doing and that isn't likely in the near term. Look how many years it took to get out of Viet Nam, another "war" run with the aid of Cheney and Rumsfeld and avoided by them as well as the Bushes. Three years already. How many more to go before the public wakes up.
Not understanding this.
"The guerrillas would be humiliated to deal with Bush, who crushed them and marginalized them."
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.
Most of these comments border on the ludicrous. You don't even have to oppose the war to notice.
1. "Psy-Ops" against the UN? Maybe someone can describe what that is. I think military "Psy Ops" work at a rather different level than discrediting the UN.
2. I think people in power misappropriating funds for personal benefit is a crime. I think using personal connections for personal gain is a crime, whether UN or US.
3. Iraqis "managed their own affairs" before March 2003? Please. . .think before writing.
4. Anyone who thinks that this event will be solved "peacefully" with or without the US is fantasizing. The civil war is about power, and riches, and control. For those reasons people have determined killing is worth it. There are a lot of ruthless, armed men in Iraq (and have been for some time). The idea that some "moderates" are going to get everyone to shake hands and make up a la Jimmy Carter is not possible. This is more like Bosnia in 1992-93 than Sinai in 1979 (when several wars had already been fought.)
Zarqawi killed de Mello to force the UN out of Iraq. You can count on more of the same.
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.)
IMO, Bush/Cheney would fall all over themselves and promise ANYthing to be able to dump this mess onto the UN, especially if it can be done before November.
But it won't happen. No country is going to step into the stinking, exploding and murderous pile of Bush..t until it is secure to do so, and that won't happen until the U.S. completely outta there.
If there is any justice at all in this mess, it is that the new Democratic administration in Washington will inherit the whole Iraq/Iran calamity. They deserve it because they did NOTHING to stop it.
IMO, the best thing for our government to do would be to secretly encourage the newly elected Iraqi governemnt to throw our buts out. That would give them legitimacy and we would have to honor our promises (right?) to leave when asked.
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.
I think you are dreaming again. This disaster belongs to the US and the UK alone (well maybe a bit of complicity in the case of Oz). If I may cite one of my favourite aphorisms, "Those who put their faith in fire, in fire their faith will be repaid."
My reading of this situation is that Canadians want no part of peacekeeping/peacemaking in Iraq. This is unusual since most Canadians see the UN and peacekeeping in a very favourable light. Current opinion ranges from disgruntled to incipient nausea on this matter.
No, I think you will have to swallow this bitter pill whole. You will be driven out by sooner or later by a combination of force, political weakness, and bad karma.
You were warned, repeatedly I have to say, not to pursue this stupidity. And the predictions have all come true. The shame will not rub off for generations and your army will be wrecked organizationally again as in Vietnam. Maybe worst of all, nobody believes a single assertion your government makes now, on any topic in any venue. Shaking off the pathological liar tag will be the most difficult burden to shed in the coming decades. Its just a pity that progressive Americans will get their own individual share of this opprobrium.
It's a good idea, but probably too late. Replacing US troops with even a lesser number from other countries will still amount to a large number of personnel. I doubt the publics of most democracies will be willing to shoulder the consequences of "George Bush's war" even if their governments are concerned about stability in the ME. And the world's dictatorships? I don't know. Does Burma really care about what's going on in Iraq? Would authoritarian governments be any less vulnerable to public resistance to an unpopular policy? I seriously doubt it. We're stuck or we leave. At this point there is little middle ground left.
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.
Here is our Democratic Club's plan which focuses on the UN only if the Iraqi's choose to have them in.
THE CLUB AND THE WAR IN IRAQ
The JVCDC has opposed the war in Iraq from the time it became obvious that the Bush Administration was set on having one without proper justification. There was sufficient public information before the invasion to show reasonable people that the official Bush justification was phony: there was a good case for believing that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and it was already sufficiently established that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq which would engender a terrorist threat from Iraq to the US and its allies. Moreover, it was clear that the administration was in fact acting on an entirely independent line of justification for an attack, one that it was not using to convince the American people and the United Nations that war was necessary in self-defense: the neo-conservative program behind the war led the Administration to believe large numbers of good things would accrue to the US (and Israel) if Saddam were to be swept away militarily.
Since the invasion, all of our earlier arguments against a war have been borne out: no WMD, no prior al-Qaeda connections. However, several further and damning things about the Bush Administration have been learned: their total credulousness in imagining that the Iraqi’s would fall into our, and each other’s, arms when Saddam was deposed; their incompetence in managing the post-war reconstruction; and their viciousness in resorting to torture and dehumanizing treatment for no good reason.
The JVCDC has now adopted two position papers designed to extricate this country from the continuing carnage in Iraq and to get us to accept the Bush Administration’s complete failure in the Iraq adventure. We urge that all Americans of good sense adopt the proposals contained in the following two documents both adopted by the Jerry Voorhis Claremont Democratic Club on November 1, 2005.
EXIT FROM IRAQ: A RESPONSIBLE STRATEGY
The JVCDC agrees with Senator Russ Feingold that: "It is dishonest to admit there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, only to invent new reasons for inflicting mass destruction on that country. It is dishonorable to fix the facts around the policy. It is unacceptable to admit that going to war was a mistake, only to claim that the mistake must be perpetuated.”
This means that we have to face the sad truth that the tens of thousands who have died or been injured as a result of our decision to go to war -- Americans, our allies and Iraqis – should not have died, should not have been injured -- and if we are now to bring some meaning to the death and suffering, it can only be by our having the courage to take the steps necessary to try to stop this war.
We therefore join with other progressive voices in the Democratic Party in calling for an end to the immoral, unnecessary, catastrophically destructive war in Iraq and stand with fellow Californians Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey as well as John Conyers and the 63 other House Members who comprise the 'Out of Iraq' Caucus.
The Democratic Party as a whole and its leaders individually must acknowledge that the continued presence of U.S. military personnel in Iraq is a serious part of the problem, because it provides a focal point for the expression of anti-U.S. anger and a motivation, though not the only one, for the insurgency. The simple truth is that the U.S.’s military presence in Iraq is now far more a part of the problem than it is a part of any feasible solution.
Therefore, the U.S. must announce a firm commitment to an orderly withdrawal of its military from Iraq in accord with a clear timeline, with the understanding that such an announcement will make it clear to the Iraqi people that they must move quickly to establish and train their own security forces and to seek accommodations among all factions so that none have a motivation for insurrection or civil war.
The U.S. must make it clear that if Iraq continues to deteriorate into turmoil or civil war, it will be a problem the Iraqis will have to solve on their own, with the understanding that the Iraqi people, through their soon to be elected new national government, may wish to enlist the assistance of the international community in a peacekeeping operation. The U.S. must pledge to support, but not lead, such a peacekeeping effort.
Polls suggest that a majority of Americans are now opposed to the war, but are not aware that there exists any viable strategy to honorably withdraw our troops.
Therefore, it is with the goal of presenting an effective and honorable exit strategy that the JVCDC urges the immediate implementation of the following seven steps to bring this ignoble venture to an end:
The Essential Steps Upon which a Responsible Iraq Exit Strategy Must Be Based
1. The U.S. must declare that it has no plans to establish any permanent military bases or military presence in Iraq and it must immediately halt any military construction projects already underway.
2. The U.S. must immediately announce that the withdrawal of U.S. troops shall begin no later than January, 2006, following the election of a government under the new constitution, and shall be completed by the end of 2006.
3. The U.S. must announce that it encourages and supports an international summit meeting to address the possibility of the creation of: a) an International Bank for the reconstruction of Iraq and b) an international peacekeeping force.
The U.S. should encourage the widest possible participation in such a summit, to include, but not be limited to: a) the nations of the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, the Arab League and the Palestinians; b) the European Union, NATO, and the United Nations; c) Russia, China, Canada, Japan, Australia, India, Parkistan, Indonesia and Brazil.
4. The U.S. must declare that it will support any international peacekeeping effort that is requested by the Iraqi people (preferably as a result of an international summit meeting) with money and supplies, and, if requested, with logistical support that does not require any U.S. troops to be on Iraqi soil.
5. The U.S. must declare that as a nation we have no intention of controlling Iraq’s oil and that we will not allow U.S. corporations to do so. The U.S. must state that we view the oil as the property of the Iraqi people, for them to control as they choose, whether through State ministries or Iraqi firms. While we hope that the goal will be an equitable distribution of the proceeds among all ethnic, religious and regional groups so as to provide a basis for a peaceful society, we recognize that ultimately this must be decided by the Iraqi people.
6. The U.S. must commit itself to provide generous reconstruction assistance to rebuild and improve the infrastructure of Iraq. But we must make it clear that such assistance will be provided only through Iraqi-administered agencies employing Iraqi workers, and/or through internationally administered agencies, such as a Bank for the Reconstruction of Iraq, if so requested by Iraq.
7. While the U.S. may express a desire to see Iraq continue as a single nation, it must make clear that the issue of whether Iraq moves toward becoming a single, integrated nation, whether it restructures itself as a confederation of weak or strong regions, or whether it devolves into independent republics, as has happened in the former Yugoslavia, is a decision that the U.S. intends to leave to the Iraqi people.
A Demand that the Bush Administration Be Held Accountable for the Disastrous Conduct of the Iraq War and Its Aftermath
It is clear that the death and destruction caused by the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and by our efforts to overcome it are in large part the result of the ineptitude and failed policies of the Bush Administration.
It is clear that the failure of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq are similarly caused primarily by the poor planning and ineptitude of the Bush Administration.
In particular:
* The decision to simply disband the Iraqi military, against the advice of the State Department and many experts with knowledge of Iraq, provided impoverished, disenfranchised, but trained troops that fueled the insurgency.
* The decision to hire U.S. firms like Halliburton and Bechtel and to allow them to import foreign labor, rather than to hire and organize Iraqis, including ex-military personnel, to assist in the reconstruction of their own nation was a tragic policy mistake which provided the insurgency with angry adherents and further impoverished tens of thousands of Iraqi families.
* The failure to secure arms depots provided the weapons that are now being used by the insurgents.
* The failure to move immediately to protect hospitals, schools, public utilities and museums caused many of the difficulties now faced by the Iraqi people and necessitates a far bigger reconstruction effort than would otherwise have been needed.
* Many of the deaths of U.S. military personnel were and are the result of a failure to provide adequate personal armor and adequately armored vehicles.
* The failure to understand the deep cultural and religious divisions among the Iraqi people, despite the advice of many experts; the failure to move to immediately open lines of communication with all the factions, including the Sunnis; and the failure to immediately establish forums in which all factions could have a meaningful voice and could sustain their human dignity have led to the disillusionment that has fueled the insurrection.
* The failure to plan from the beginning to seal the borders with Syria and Iran to prevent the incursion of non-Iraqis opposed to the invasion has fueled and strengthened the insurrection, even though it remains a largely Iraqi effort.
It is critical that the leadership of the Democratic Party make it clear to the American people that the cumulative results of all these failures of U.S. policy have greatly weakened our own nation’s security and increased the threat of terrorism due to thousands of persons gaining terrorist training and experience, and focusing their anger and resentment on the U.S.
The demoralization of our reserve and National Guard forces -- including the economic losses suffered by National Guard and reserve personnel and their families in the form of failed small businesses and lost homes -- are another price our nation has paid for starting and conducting this war.
The financial costs to our nation, and even more importantly the opportunity costs in terms of resources spent on the war instead of on Social Security, healthcare, education, social programs, homeland security and disaster preparedness are a further burden of this war.
Therefore, the JVCDC joins with other patriots throughout America in calling for the leadership of the Democratic Party to make clear to the American people that the conduct of the war and of the reconstruction effort have been marked by an astounding level of incompetence on the part of the Republican Administration and that this has lead to a weakening of our national security by causing a heightened level of terrorist activity, a weakening of the U.S. military, and unacceptable financial burdens on the Nation as a whole and on the families of our National Guard and Reserve force.
Planetary Alignment?
U.S. experts explore Iraq exit strategies
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- More than 2,270 Americans have lost their lives in the ongoing war in Iraq. The recent elections there and the establishment of democracy have not solved the main problems. As the bloody insurgency continues, the search for a viable exit strategy has intensified.
At the Washington D.C. launch of the Independent Institute, a non-partisan think-tank, analysts recently said U.S. withdrawal hinges on a successful counter-insurgency strategy, yet there was little agreement on the form this should take.
Many observers believe a specific timetable for withdrawal would greatly diffuse the insurgency. Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress argued that timetabled extraction should remove the bulk of U.S. troops by 2008.
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.
I agree with Christiane...
Quote from above:
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.
However, I would go further. US/UK/Australian illegal aggressors should not benefit in any way from the Iraq invasion. Corporates and citizens from these countries should be banned from Iraq investment/ownership of Iraqi assets.
Of course none of this will happen which proves the point that the UN is completely discredited by the Iraq misadventure and is revealed as a US puppet.
Further if you really wanted to "help" Iraq rather than manipulate it for US ends:
1. Withdraw all US/"coalition" troops to the Iraqi borders to prevent any trouble from its neighbours and stop US abuses of Iraqis. They would stay on the borders until Iraq says they can leave, even if this takes 20 years. This should not be at the discretion of the US being instead part of the compensation to Iraq for the illegal US/UK/Aus invasion.
2. Make all of Iraq a no-fly military zone - the US airforce needs to withdraw from Iraq and stop indiscriminate collective punishment. On the other hand Iraq is vulnerable until they have their own airforce.
3. Iraq's elected officials need to proceed on their own decisions at their own pace until they have achieved stability including an army and an airforce of their own (without any paternalistic interference from outsiders including the US, UK, UN, IMF, etc...)
4. The US ambassador to Iraq needs to be publicly cautioned by the Iraqi Prime Minister to stop interfering in Iraqi sovereign issues as he will be sent home to the US otherwise.
Clive
And impeach Bush, Blair and Howard for the ultimate war crime of illegal aggression against a sovereign nation.
Since the fall of 2003, the antiwar movement in the US has debated the issue of "out now" or "out soon." The Bush team's position has been "out when we finish the job." Until recently, the Dem. leadership position has been, "We demand a strategy for success." Post-Cindy Sheehan, a significant number of Dems have moved to Juan's "we want a timetable for withdrawal" position.
Multiplied many times by many similar statements, Juan's (very welcome) change in position is destabilizing the pro-war Dem leadership position. The mainstream media have begun to reflect this opening. "Out without victory" is now a debatable option.
The obvious question is, "If we just pull out, what next?" Juan urges the UN alternative, and urges the peace movement to adopt the same.
Commentators' proper cynicism about Bush, Bolton, the UN, "it will never happen," etc., are well-taken but irrelevant. The issue is changing the Dems. Not "trusting" them, not "looking to them for leadership," but recognizing that the Dem leadership's "strategy for success" line is the main obstacle in our path at the moment. We must encourage the pro-war opportunists such as Biden and H.Clinton, and their many clones in the House & Senate, to revise their idea of where "opportunity" lies. To succeed, we will do this not just through debate, but by changing the political sea in which they swim.
Juan states that, "The peace movement will be more credible if it has a program other than simple US withdrawal from Iraq....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."
Two points. The first is that Juan should acknowledge that the US antiwar movement, and presumably others, have consistently addressed this issue, primarily with some version of "US out, UN in." - The fact that this has not been featured by the major US media is a good point, but there shouldn't be an implication that the peace movement has been blind to "what next?"
Second, the devil is in the details of "take it to the UN." The following is excerpted from the position/statement on Iraq by the largest US antiwar peace coalition, United for Peace and Justice. It illustrates the need for "Iraq" to invite the UN, and that the UN should be assisting in the fulfillment of Iraqi goals, not those of the US. The statement is from May 2004, so it has been somewhat overtaken by events, but the basic principles remain:
"The United Nations and other international organizations should refuse to endorse or collaborate with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But once the U.S. ends its occupation, if representative sectors of Iraqi society invite it, the UN, backed by other international bodies such as the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, should help the Iraqis establish mechanisms through which to choose their own leaders and reclaim sovereign control of their own country." (www.unitedforpeace.org}
Returning to Juan's basic point: irrespective of the Bolton-at-the-UN problem, it would be a big gain for the peace movement if opportunist Democrats found it opportune to campaign in November 2006 under the slogan of "US Out, UN In."
Frank Brodhead
New York
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?
what happened to the juan cole scenario of large scale civil war in the event of US withdrawal? change of mind, heart, or circumstances on the ground?
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.
Good points, Christiane. A brief reply. Our focus here should be on the importance of a shift in US elite opinion, and esp. of the Dem. party leadership, from critical/grudging support of the war to "withdrawal without victory," whether it be by "timetable" or whatever. Such a shift would have many repercussions in the US, not least in broadening the range of debate possible in the US media and helping to re-energize discouraged peace advocates.
"US out, UN in" is a short-hand answer for "what next?" - Note that polls show continued strong support for the UN w/in the US, presumably strongest among Dem. rank and file. NB also e.g. Cheney's recent trip to Egypt, where Mubarak said Egytian "peacekeeping" troops for Iraq would be available only under non-US leadership, such as the Arab League. Certainly a request from a stable Iraqi government, if such a thing were to come to pass, for international support as an alternative to continued US occupation would be given a good response in much of the world.
Again, let's put our focus on driving the "timetable" wedge into the Dem. leadership. The "what next?" is a secondary issue.
Frank Brodhead
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