UN role in Iraq needed more than ever

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.