Why to the UN now?
Sirajul Islam, Dhaka
The situation in Iraq has turned super-critical. A panic-stricken Mr. Bush has gone to the UNSC, something which he ignored in the past, with a request for a fresh resolution requesting more troops for Iraq. But just a week earlier Bush had arrogantly declared that he had no intention of moving a fresh resolution to please powers that "seek influence in post-war Iraq" but had failed to support the war itself. A New York Times report says that the Americans are leaning heavily on the UN to encourage former opponents of the war in Iraq to contribute military aid. Yet, when US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, met UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, he made it clear that the war coalition would continue to command all military forces in Iraq. It would not cede any of its political and economic authority, though the UN's future role "can be discussed in the course of our negotiations on a resolution". In other words, other countries contribute soldiers and cash and, in return, they would get meagre rewards. It means the participating countries and the UN must accept US hegemony and control over Iraq. Policymakers of many states have been learnt to be eager to send troops to Iraq are keenly watching the evolving situation. A new UNSC resolution is likely coming on the lines of the Afghan or Kosovo models so that the friends of the United States can stretch the cover on the lines of what NATO is doing in Afghanistan now. Under the favoured formula the so-called Interim Governing Council of Iraq, a US puppet indeed, would invite friendly countries to dispatch troops. Many believe that countries like Turkey, India, Pakistan would then send troops to Iraq because many ruling governments in the world now believe that the reality is that the US is the only power that matters. So, align with it and prosper; or oppose it and perish. But this view grossly distorts reality. The US has proved it is a military giant by technology but not all that capable with ground combat, and it is incapable of devising a wise political strategy to stabilise Iraq, leave alone combat terrorism. Indeed, Washington has snatched political defeat from the jaws of military victory by turning a country that was not a terrorist threat. The attack on the UN office in Iraq may or may not be the work of non-Iraqi groups, as Western intelligence officers suspect. But it shows how vulnerable and unsafe everybody and everything in Iraq is. It is futile to pretend that opposition to the Anglo-American occupation is confined to the 'Sunni heartland' around Baghdad. It is widespread and extends to the Shiite centre of Mosul to the south and to the Kurdish city of Kirkuk where oil pipelines were bombed. The resentment leaves nobody secure. The resentment's roots are America's own making. About half of the Iraqis polled by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies attribute the anti-US resistance and violence to 'provocation' by American forces. The US' failure to provide a minimum of public services and security to the people is compounded by a series of political blunders, including the creation of an interim council of ministers under the guidance of American advisors headed by Paul Bremer. The August 19 attack has undermined the image of the UN as a relatively invulnerable institution, guarantor of security and Iraq's future 'peace-keeper'. Yet, as former UN Assistant Secretary General in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck, says, the attack "isn't a surprise. The Iraqis are angry. The range of anger goes with dissatisfaction about the lack of progress in restoring normalcy. This is not freedom. An externally imposed rather than an Iraqi-made freedom is not real freedom and we will see more of what has happened today as we go along..." It would be foolish to respond to this situation by demanding more troops and greater application of force. The US will be tempted to do exactly that -- and to bulldoze the UN, to cut its own military losses. Washington under its neo-conservative leadership will also blame 'foreign hands' and resist the plain fact that the occupation has created an indigenous resistance. The situation is bound to turn messier and uglier as the US makes more and more political mistakes.
|
|
