After the war, expect a much pared-down UN role

After the war, expect a much pared-down UN role

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has been in a
series of emergency meetings to discuss the war in Iraq, or Gulf
War II. The kind of action the Security Council finally decides
upon is a crucial question that could determine not only whether
this war should continue before more damage is done, but it may
also determine the future of the Council itself, and that of the
United Nations as a whole.

Indeed, a special or an emergency meeting of the Council would
hardly have been necessary if it had taken a clear stand on the
U.S. plan to invade Iraq in the first place.

But it was convened because at its previous meeting, under the
threat of likely vetoes by France, Russia and China, the Council
had opted not to put the draft resolution, supported by the U.S.
UK and Spain, to a vote, thus avoiding a decision on a new
resolution as a follow-up to Resolution 1441 (which called for
sincere Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspectors).

As there was no new resolution, the U.S. and Britain decided
to start Gulf War II by invading Iraq with the aim of not only
disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction in accordance
with UNSC resolutions in the wake of Gulf War I, but also to
topple Saddam Hussein, the dictator.

Thus through what seems to have appeared in the eyes of the
majority of the international community as an act of aggression,
a crime against humanity as reflected by the increasing protests
worldwide against the war, the U.S. has invaded Iraq in order to
save its people from tyrannical oppression under the existing
regime. That, at least, is the pretext.

Has the U.S. thereby violated international law? It seems
debatable in terms of the nature of international politics and of
international laws. Has the U.S. violated the UN Charter? That
may be debatable, too, since it has not acted against any clear
UN Security Council resolution.

At best, as I have argued before, the U.S. has violated a
gentleman's agreement with the rest of the permanent members of
the Council except Britain; an agreement already incorporated in
the UN Charter. At least indirectly, therefore, the U.S. has
indeed violated the UN Charter. It has ignored the UN Security
Council, and thus it has ignored the United Nations.

Can the Council make up for its previous lack of guts? Will it
come to a clear stand on Gulf War II, censuring the U.S. and
demanding a stop to the aggression before it is too late, despite
a likely challenge of a veto by the U.S. and Britain? That would
be an unlikely scenario.

The walkout of the U.S. ambassador from the UNSC special
meeting during the speech of the Iraqi ambassador did not augur
well. And even if it did, the U.S. and Britain would again ignore
such a resolution, or these two great and powerful nations would
not have started the war in the first place.

Either way, that would be a real challenge to the Security
Council, and thus to the role and in fact the very survival of
the UN as a whole. Indeed, that challenge became a reality the
moment the U.S. and UK attacked Iraq.

To be sure, it has been and will again be a challenge to the
position of Kofi Annan personally as UN Secretary-General. In
passing, it may be recalled that the power of the second
Secretary-General of the UN, Dag Hammarskjold, seemed to thrive
on a series of crises during the earlier part of the Cold War
with so much East-West (Soviet-U.S.) tension.

By contrast, Kofi Annan was elected Secretary-General of the
UN well after Gulf War I when the UN was already dominated by the
U.S. as a reflection of the "New World Order" at the end of the
Cold War, that the senior president Bush thought he had helped
create.

The transatlantic rupture prior to Gulf War II seems to have
been something few anticipated. The seeming lack of courage by
the UNSC was institutional rather than individual on the part of
the Secretary-General or the Chairman of the UNSC.

If, against all odds, the UN should survive in the wake of
Gulf War II, whatever its implications, it would be hard to
expect it to deal anymore with the problems of international
peace and security as it was meant to do when it was created.

To judge the significance of the UN role should perhaps now be
based on its achievements in the social (health, educational,
environmental, and other humanitarian) and economic fields more
than in peace and security.

As such, the continued survival and role of the UN would be
more geared toward interests of the developing world. In the
first place, however, the UN is primarily based in the U.S.,
which is also the largest financial contributor.

Thus it seems hard to conceive of the UN without the
significant role of the U.S. Its great role would certainly
continue to be necessary. U.S. domination, however, would
certainly be unacceptable. Gulf War II, even if it should end in
victory on the part of the U.S.-led coalition, has revealed the
worst dimension of the "Ugly American".

It has shattered the "house on the hill" analogy that
president Ronald Reagan often referred to as a "lighthouse" of
the U.S. to the world reflecting the American way of life
characterized by its commitment to freedom, human rights and
democratic ideals.

Such would be the cost to the world, even if Gulf War II
easily ended in a U.S. victory. Indeed, the Iraqi people may hate
Saddam Hussein's tyranny, but it does not necessarily mean they
would welcome what amounts to terror by the U.S. and its allies
trying to impose democracy on their country.

To be sure, the U.S. did impose democracy on the Japanese
people through Gen. McArthur. The U.S.-led allied forces also
imposed it on Germany. But while Germany started World War II in
Europe, Japan started the Pacific War by bombing Pearl Harbor
first, thereby waking up the sleeping tiger. By contrast, even if
Gulf War I was provoked by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the U.S.
started Gulf War II.

There is no shortcut to democracy. Basically, it should be
left to the Iraqi people themselves. Ferdinand Marcos in the
Philippines was forced out of office by people power, without
foreign invasion. If there was some form of foreign interference,
the U.S. helped the Philippines by providing asylum for Marcos.

Here, Soeharto was forced to resign by student demonstrations
without foreign interference, let alone foreign invasion. For
certain reasons, the Iraqi people may need more time.