UN will play a bigger role in Iraq

<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Security Council unanimously approves Iraq resolution</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Four years ago, in 2003, the war in Iraq represented a major embarrassment for the United Nations, when the US army invaded the country with no approval from the organization (and most of the world). At the time, there were hard feelings between the institution, based in New York, and Washington D.C., but the war followed regardless of what Kofi Annan, then UN’s Secretary-General, the General Assembly and the Security Council thought of that.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Four years later, with the American-led campaign gone wrong, the US army looking for any help they can and the general opinion getting more and more against the war, the insurgency grew stronger and the humanitarian crisis in Iraq went out of the American’s control, with violence and poverty reaching critical levels. And it’s with this scenario that the once ignored UN now increases its role in Iraq, with unanimous approval from a Security Council that once had nothing but contempt for the American campaign in its beginning.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Even with the controversy that surrounded the American offensive in Iraq, UN had never effectively left the country. It was only after the macabre attack with a bomb truck that destroyed part of the UN headquarters in the country and killed the head of the Iraqi humanitarian mission, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and other 21 members that the institution retreated and withdrew most of its staff from the country (it only allowed 65 members to reside in Iraq). Now, even though there’s still a controversy inside the UN regarding the presence of its staff in the country and worries about its protection, this resolution gives the organization a greater political role in the development of the country, especially in terms of bridging the gap between different sectarian groups and political clans.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">The resolution also expands the UN mandate in Iraq for a year and raises the number of staff from 65 to 95 people. For now, there will be no presence of the famous “blue helmets,” as it’s the norm on other humanitarian missions from the institution, and it won’t interfere with military issues.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">But the resolution also has other political connotations for the UN, the Security Council and the US. These connotations will shift the balance of power inside and outside the country, helping to shape the political future of Iraq in the long term. <br />
<br />
The US, for example, is more than thankful for the UN for showing up at such an “opportune” time. Right now, the general thinking among Americans is that the US command in Iraq is clueless. Violence doesn’t stop (most of the times, it only grows) and the best the American forces are able to do is, every now and then, come up with a few major arrests of key people inside the insurgency. It brings some applause until a substitute appears and the Pentagon adds a new face to their most wanted list. After four years, Americans not only saw the situation in Iraq decline, but also saw their allies, such as Spain and Italy, retreat and Britain, its main partner, get further away from the action. <br />
<br />
This has caused the US to finally recognize their need for partners, which made President Bush and the Pentagon admit, last year, that the keys to a peaceful and democratic Iraq were integration and dialogue between different sectors of society and stronger national forces. It ended up in the mega-project of training and arming the Iraqi army which would, according to the Pentagon, take control of the country and bring peace as the US army retreated slowly, solving two problems (an unstable Iraq filled with terrorists and the death of American soldiers).</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Even though the new scope of the UN’s resolution doesn’t exactly save the American campaign, it’s a good sign that the organization is willing to help where the Americans might need the most: politics. In most cases, the hundreds of insurgents who raise hell on the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere with their bombs and guns answer to a handful of clerics and bosses, therefore the political ambitions of these “bosses” are what ultimately fuel the sectarian violence in Iraq. The simpler answer would be to just “cut the head and let the body die,” but the many American attempts to kill high profile insurgents were not successful in terms of weakening the armed opposition in the country.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">The UN is the most qualified to try a more peaceful approach, something that the Americans have also tried to do, but unsuccessfully. Firstly, because the UN is basically made for this sort of procedure; it might not be completely neutral but it’s definitely fitter for the job than the US. As the UN envoys do their job on the Iraq political scene, they gain the trust of shias, sunnis, kurds and, most importantly, the Americans, who might let them play a bigger role as time goes by, allowing the UN to effectively run the show in the long term.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Secondly, since the UN has inputs from all countries (unless when counting only with the Security Council, but it’s still more than just the Americans), a decision made by it would have larger approval. It’s possible that a UN decision will have more legitimacy within Iraqi politicians, making the job easier to bring the different sectors of society together and diminish sectarian violence.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">This larger participation is also a big test for the UN itself. The beginning of the war and especially the attack on its Iraqi base were two severe hits on the UN reputation and capacity to handle international crises, which made then Secretary-General Kofi Annan to reduce the UN scope in Iraq and even have a more low-key participation on other humanitarian crises in the world. Four years and one Secretary-General later, the UN finally seems to have gotten back on its feet to assume a greater role where it’s needed the most. Just recently, the organization approved a resolution allowing the biggest peacekeeping contingency of its history to land on Darfur, the war zone in Sudan that gained notoriety for the cruelty of its conflict.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">It was a big step that many were expecting from the UN for a while, and now, with this shy but significant step forward in Iraq, the UN has another chance of showing that it still can manage crises throughout the world, and ultimately bring peace to these places. As the UN assumers a greater political role, it also gives room for the UN to reduce, on the political spectrum, the instability and violence that ruins Iraq on the mid-term. This improvement would allow, in the long term, the American forces to reduce their role in the country, leaving it to the Iraqi army and – who knows? – the blue helmets.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">That would be a major step for the institution, one that would greatly increase their morale, fixing a country torn apart by a war it didn’t support. Should it be up for the job, it could establish a precedent that would make another UN-disapproved war much harder to justify in the future.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">This resolution also means that the Security Council, after all the bickering with the Americans, seems to have understood that this is no longer President Bush’s problem alone. Four ears have gone by and Iraq is still at risk of going out of control (for many, it already has), and the consequences of it are unpredictable. As the presidential elections in the US approach (with a good probability of a democrat winner), the possibility that the US will keep the same pace with its campaign in Iraq diminishes, increasing the chances of Iraq becoming a shelter for terrorists.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">That represents a risk not only for the permanent members of the council (France, China, US, UK and Russia), but for many other countries in the world. Some of these potential targets for terrorism also happen to be members of the current council, such as Italy, Belgium, Indonesia and Qatar. That could help explaining the unanimous approval of the UN resolution; a bigger role by the UN while the US plans its retreat would mean a bigger chance of a less chaotic Iraq in the future, and a bigger chance of protection for these and other countries.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Apparently, the UN’s new mission in Iraq seems to be a win-win situation for everyone involved. That is, if they can assure the safety of their fieldsmen. The UN staff union issued a controversial statement right as the resolution was approved at the Security Council. According to the union, the UN should not only avoid sending more people to Iraq, but withdraw the few remaining members. For the union, the UN can’t rely on American and British soldiers for safety (which is not exactly an unfounded accusation, hence the 2003 attack), and until the overall safety situation in Baghdad improves, it wouldn’t be proper to keep any UN personnel <em>in loco.</em></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">It’s still a mystery if the union or the council will win this arm wrestle, but the union’s stand is enough to jeopardize the UN’s new mission in Iraq before it even begins. On the other hand, it’s somewhat a paradox that one of the only institutions that could help increasing security in Iraq is reluctant because of the very same security – how can this problem be solved?</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt">What is known is that the UN has more to win than to lose in Iraq. And this initial approach, with not many personnel and a bigger political role, seems to be the best way of introducing a new authority in the twisted political scene of Iraq, paving the way for a bigger intervention with greater results. Insofar, the entire world seems to be on the UN’s side – starting with the Security Council.</span></div>

Leave Your Comments Cancel reply