UN role in Iraq needed more than ever

Desra Percaya, Diplomat, Indonesian Mission to the United Nations, New York

The primary responsibility of the United Nations (UN), as underlined in its Charter, is maintaining international peace and security. Despite its many successes, the organization has also had its failures. The reasons for these setbacks and the attendant, unprecedented criticisms of the UN have ranged from its hegemony by the major powers to its inability to resolve conflicts peacefully in various parts of the world.

The post-Cold War era offered a favorable environment conducive to the political settlement of most conflicts that were aided and abetted by the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. Their proxy wars in Africa, Asia and Latin America were coming to an end along with their military and ideological competition.

The concept of a New World Order soon followed. Although its contours were not precisely defined at that time, it was generally understood as a world in which all nations would be assured of greater equality and justice and an equal voice in decision-making on issues of concern and interest. However, by any yardstick and for all practical purposes, the U.S. emerged as the sole super power on the global scene, given its massive military power and economic clout.

It was at this critical juncture that the first Gulf War broke out in 1991. The UN Security Council was united in authorizing the coalition forces, led by the U.S., to repel Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Events soon made it clear that it was a coalition of convenience, as the unity among major powers began to crack when the perceived common enemy was defeated. Consequently, the end of the Cold War has created more instability in the revival of traditional, historical sources of tension and international conflict.

The Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. changed the international landscape almost overnight, and combating international terrorism has become the dominant issue on the global agenda. Sympathizing with the U.S. for its human losses and material devastation, an unprecedented unity among nations began to prevail in working with the U.S. to eliminate the threat of terrorism.

The focus was eventually directed at uprooting terrorist elements from Afghanistan, particularly the Taliban and al-Qaeda, as well as Osama bin Laden's associates. In this effort, the role of the Security Council was also significantly strengthened through the creation of new mechanisms, namely the Counter- Terrorism Committee and the Sanction Committee.

While endeavors to finish the task in Afghanistan are still ongoing, the Iraq issue resurfaced in 2002, this time with the spotlight on its alleged development and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The U.S.' insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and its impatience as the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) completed its work tested the UN for months.

Because the U.S.' attempts to legitimize its policy through the Security Council did not bring a positive response from other major powers, the U.S., with the full backing of the UK, finally launched a unilateral attack on Iraq, followed by the ousting of Saddam Hussein's regime. This unilateral action deeply undermined the credibility and authority of the UN.

Many UN member states raised severe criticisms of Washington's second war on Iraq for at least three reasons: First, UN inspectors did not find any WMD in Iraq; second, the unilateral attack was illegal, as it ignored the competence of the UN; and third, the attack was primarily political in its motivation of changing the Iraqi regime rather than to find and dismantle WMD, the claims of which have been proven false even by American inspectors.

While winning some key battles, the U.S. is still far from winning the war. A daily report of U.S. soldiers killed and wounded has forced the Bush administration to think hard and reassess its policy on its continuing occupation of Iraq. Rebuilding Iraq seems to be much more difficult than occupying it, particularly without the support of the UN, which had withdrawn its staff after the tragic killing of the Secretary- General's Representative, Sergio de Mello, in August last year.

The return to peace and stability a doubtful prospect in Iraq, combined with the imminent U.S. presidential election in November, the Bush administration has been compelled to accelerate the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis by June 30.

This was arranged in the signing of the Nov. 15, 2003 agreement between the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), and it was initially expected that a general election could be held before that date. However, problems soon arose over the choice of caucus-style elections proposed by the U.S., which opposed the majority Shia that called for direct elections.

Responding to a request from the IGC and the CPA, the UN Secretary-General dispatched a fact-finding mission to Iraq this year from Feb. 6 to Feb. 13, led by respected and experienced diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi. The ensuing report, publicized on Feb. 23, illustrates the overwhelming complexity and difficulty of rebuilding Iraq.

The report suggests that, among other things, credible elections cannot take place by June 30, as substantial preparations are needed. It also underlines that, in the case that political agreement on the legal framework is secured by May and provided that other conditions are met, elections could be held by the end of 2004 or shortly thereafter.

Indeed, holding elections according to the original plan could bring more problems than solutions to an already divided society that has long been under an undemocratic regime. Broad support and cooperation from a wide range of factions in Iraq is a prerequisite for smooth, credible elections, to which end the occupying power is simply lacking in capability and capacity.

An election is not a panacea to the problems in Iraq, as it is rather a process to establish democratic governance based on the rule of law. There are other pressing issues to be resolved, as stated by the Secretary-General in his letter to the Security Council, such as the choice of a transitional mechanism that would enjoy the broadest support among Iraqi constituencies and how to implement such a mechanism.

This is certainly the area in which the UN could help the Iraqi people to regain their sovereignty and build a peaceful and stable country. The UN has all the necessary attributes, such as experience, expertise and credibility. In fact, the report of the UN fact-mission to Iraq has also offered a complete road map towards returning the sovereignty, unity and integrity of Iraq.

Hence, it has become obvious that only the UN could assume a vital role and guide the Iraqis to become masters of their own future. Nevertheless, the Secretary-General has pointed out rightly that a precondition for the UN to succeed in Iraq is the clear and unambiguous support of a united Security Council and the establishment of a secure environment.

Finally, the latest developments regarding Iraq have proven once again that no matter how strong and big a country, it cannot go it alone in maintaining international peace and security.

Unilateralism belongs to a bygone era; multilateral cooperation has become a basic principle of international relations that can no longer be sidelined.

The UN, as the embodiment of multilateralism, has an undeniable and central role than ever before in rebuilding Iraq.

The views expressed above are those of the writer and do not in any way reflect the position of the Government of Indonesia.