Shireen M Mazari
09/10/03: It is clear that the US Administration really feels it can fool all of the people all of the time. There is no other explanation for the form in which the US has introduced its present draft resolution before the UN Security Council in which it is primarily seeking to involve the UN in the nitty-gritty of its occupation of Iraq while it continues to make the substantive decisions relating to the future of that unfortunate country. As part of the effort to involve the UN for the unenviable tasks, especially law and order which is costing an increasing number of American lives, and which the Americans have shown to be singularly inept at establishing (as seen by the number of acts of sabotage and terrorism against the Iraqi people), the US is seeking cannon fodder from other countries — especially Muslim states.
This cannon fodder would be in the form of UN peacekeepers who would be under US command. And this US command would not be like the normal UN command where the commander is answerable to the UN Secretary General. Instead, according to the US Draft Resolution submitted to the UN Security Council on 4 September, 2003, the reference to the multinational force inter alia, states that the Security Council, under Chapter VII of the Charter "authorizes a multinational force, under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq and urges all Member States to contribute assistance, including military forces, to that effect".
There are some very interesting aspects of this Draft. To begin with, the reference is to a multinational force rather than specifically a UN peacekeeping force and the US has tried to be too clever by far by only giving a reference to "unified command" in the clause that deals with the multinational force. But if anyone has any doubts as to who would be in command, they should examine the last clause of the Draft Resolution — Clause 17 — which requires the United States, "on behalf of all Member States participating in the multinational force ... (to) report to the Security Council on the efforts and progress of this force as appropriate and not less than every six months." So there is no UN supervision or responsibility other than making sure that the US submits the required report to the Security Council. For this little linkage, the UN Member States will provide soldiers to fight under US command and replace US soldiers since the Americans are very sensitive to body bags of their own! So, at the end of the day, what the US is seeking from the UN is sharing of the financial burden and military costs for its unilateral invasion of Iraq — which had no UN Security Council Resolution support.
Even at the economic and political levels, the US is merely seeking a fig leaf cover for its Iraq policies from the UN Security Council. For instance, according to the latest Draft Resolution of the US, the Security Council, while it endorses "the Governing Council as the principle body of the Iraqi interim administration"(Clause 4), it invites the Governing Council "to provide, in co-operation with the Authority operating in Iraq and the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General a timetable and program for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections"(Clause 6). The operative word here is the reference to the "Authority operating in Iraq" — that is, the US. So, once again, the US is seeking to use a UN Security Council Resolution to legitimise its occupation of Iraq.
So what is the US seeking from the UN? Certainly not any truly international intervention to replace the US Occupation. Instead, it is seeking to get support for this occupation and worse still, it is seeking to shift the burden of the occupation — both the military and the economic — on to the UN. This is clear not only from the Draft Resolution — where there is a call for the UN and international financial institutions to remain engaged in the reconstruction of Iraq and its economy and UN Member States are urged to accelerate the provision of substantial financial contributions to support Iraqi reconstruction (Clauses 13 & 14) — but also from the latest Address to the Nation made by President Bush on 7 September, 2003. In that, Bush states that "I have directed Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorise the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, to be led by America." He goes on to declare that "Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity — and the responsibility — to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation." But the UN cannot actually carry out these functions because they are not being given the decision-making authority in Iraq — that will still lie with the Americans. The East Timor example will not be followed in Iraq, in the context of the UN’s terms of reference for involvement in Iraq. That is why the US is not seeking a UN peacekeeping force, but simply a multinational one!
For a country like Pakistan, which has served under many UN military missions, sending forces under such a resolution would mean that Pakistani soldiers and officers would be subject to US command and under control of the US and its agenda — not under the UN command and programme. How will this sit with the notion of national sovereignty, since this is not the same as serving under UN command given that we are all Members of the UN? This undermines the whole purpose of the UN forces — which must play a neutral role to bring about peace and security. UN-mandated forces cannot enforce any state’s national agenda. So there is a need to revise the Draft put forward by the US — and the revision needs to be substantive. The first change should be on the issue of UN command over the multinational force. And that UN commander has to be responsible directly to the UN Secretary General for orders and so on. Since the US does not allow its forces to serve under foreign command, it is hardly appropriate for an international force to have a US commander — especially in the case of Iraq where the US is a party to the conflict.
On this issue of international UN command, there should be no compromise by the Security Council if there is to be a truly international peacekeeping force for Iraq. Otherwise, the US will have been correct in its assumption that it can fool all the people all of the time. Nor will simply replacing US soldiers with foreign soldiers, under US command, have any credibility — so such a force will face the same problems that the US and British forces are facing in Iraq. The fact of the matter is, that the US has failed in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq, as well as in establishing law and order and basic amenities for the Iraqi people. It wants the UN to bail it out. But the UN has to be true to its own objectives — it is not there simply to bail out the powerful when they fail in their aggressive designs. If the US wants the UN now it must concede ground to the UN on basic issues, especially on the issue of peacekeeping. The UN may not have been able to stop the US going it alone in Iraq, but it should not allow itself to be used simply to pick up the mess left by this act of US unilateralism. The Iraqis need the UN, and the UN should send UN forces to Iraq to establish law and order and accelerate the reconstruction process — but not under US Authority and Command.
The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has declared that the UN has to undergo sweeping reform because after the Iraq war it had lost the confidence of many across the globe. But to an equal many, the UN Security Council not succumbing to US pressure on Iraq gave confidence that even though no one could stop the militarily powerful US from flexing its military muscle, the international community was not prepared to legitimise this flexing. Now, once again, the credibility of the UN is at stake and once again it must remain true to its own agenda and not succumb to its most powerful Member State. While it cannot deter the US, it has to expose the illegitimacy of unilateralism and the legitimacy of international collective action under a UN mandate. In the long run, the unilateralist power will come back to the community as the US is seeking to do — but at that time, it must hand over authority to the international community also.
The writer is Director General of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The views expressed by the writer are her own
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2003-daily/10-09-2003/oped/o3.htm
