Bringing the United Nations Back In

by Liberty and Power

Today Juan Cole offers a program for peace in Iraq.
"informed Comment" by Juan Cole

There will be anti-War protests in the coming month, as the 3-year anniversary of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq approaches.

I think it is time to demand a timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq. I suspect a majority of Iraqi parliamentarians want that. The Sunni Arabs demand it. The Sadrists demand it. It is time. Saying that the guerrillas would take advantage of a timetable, given the carnage we saw on Monday (see below) is frankly silly. They are taking advantage of the current situation. We have to create a new situation, with which they might be happier so that they stop blowing things up. Staying this course is untenable.

But that step will not necessarily resolve the crisis.

I think the peace movement has a real opportunity here to make a push for much heavier United Nations involvement in Iraq. I say, let's make up placards calling on Kofi Annan to get involved, and calling on Bush to let the UN come in in a big way, with proper protection.

Here are the advantages:

1. The United Nations has political legitimacy in the Middle East. American unilateralism does not. The guerrillas would be humiliated to deal with Bush, who crushed them and marginalized them. They would be more likely to treat with the UN.

2. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has demanded greater UN involvement, and he has enormous authority with the Shiite majority.

3. No country is going to send troops to Iraq under a United States military command. There has to be a United Nations peace-enforcing command. Once that exists, it might become an umbrella for Arab League troops, e.g. Cheney was told as much when he was in Cairo, according to the Arabic press.

I.e., by keeping out the UN, the Bush administration is guaranteeing that it is mainly American (and British) blood and treasure that is spilt in Iraq for years to come.

4. If the United Nations could be mobilized to help Iraq through the coming years of instability and help shepherd it to independence from the US and UK, it would help to strengthen international, multilateral organizations generally and contribute to an institutionalization of international law.

5. The permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as all UN member states, have a keen interest in the fate of Iraq and the Gulf. They should be encouraged to deploy some of their treasure (and probably some blood) for the common benefit of Iraqis and the world.

6. The peace movement will be more credible if it has a program other than simple US withdrawal from Iraq. The US public is aware that an Iraq in flames at the head of the oil-rich Gulf could have a horrible impact on the US itself. A demand that the Iraq situation be internationalized is a responsible way of getting the US out, getting Iraq out of Bush's incompetent hands, and helping Iraqis move forward.

7. Bush invaded Iraq in part in order to destroy the United Nations. Forcing him to bring it in to Iraq would be a blow against American unilateralism and rightwing American aggression for decades to come.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Craig J. Bolton - 2/22/2006

All good comments.

For the life of me I cannot understand why it would be in the interests of libertarians [or anyone else] to promote more involvement by and increase the prestige of an organization composed of governments - an organization that is notorious for its bloated bureaucracy, that does nothing constructive, and is specialized in sucking up money for itself and its client dictators.

David is right. "Iraq" is an artificial construction that crys out for partition. Time to get out of the way and allow the partition to occur naturally.

Mark Brady - 2/22/2006

You're absolutely correct. And this means that the antiwar movement should not become sidetracked into calling for greater UN involvement. Antiwar activists in the U.S. should be stepping up pressure on the Bush administration to withdraw U.S. troops, period. And antiwar activists in the UK should be stepping up pressure on the Blair administration to withdraw UK troops, period.

William Marina - 2/21/2006

I tend to agree that because of oil, Israel & bases,
Bush will tend to keep us in Iraq for what is now called the "Long War." A rational decentralization is not to his liking. The model is in many ways more like our Cuban "protectorate," circa 1902-1933, than even the PI.

Robert Higgs - 2/21/2006

Any such "solution" to the current situation in Iraq faces the immediate obstacle of the power in place, that is, the U.S. government. As long as Bush remains president, it is extremely difficult to foresee much change of any kind in Iraq.

We have only to ask: what's in it for the Bush administration? As painful as it is for some of us to contemplate, the great mass of the U.S. public, as well as the elites who preside over it, seems content to let this atrocious situation continue to simmer indefinitely. No great pressure from politically potent quarters is being brought to bear on Bush.

Yes, he is being nibbled by countless embarrassments and public-relations fiascoes--Michael Brown, Shooter Cheney, and all the rest. But so what? Bush has the army and the rest of the government at his command. He and his pals have the territory of Iraq in their grasp--at least, the U.S. military ranges freely there. The president is more powerful than ever, and gaining power (here at home) each day, simply by asserting new powers and having no one who counts stand up and say no, we won't tolerate that.

If the U.S. casualty rate became much greater, then resistance might eventually build, but the Bush government has Vietnamized the war enough that the risk to U.S. personnel remains fairly constant, and people have become accustomed to it. The troops are loyal; mutiny is the last thing they'd think of.

In short, in all likelihood, there can be no solution until Bush goes.

David T. Beito - 2/21/2006

I don't think it is a good idea. My objections are not primarily ideological but practical. Like the U.S. state department, the UN is extremely inflexible in its unwillingness to redraw borders.

A unified state (especially including the Kurds) probably can't work anymore in Iraq....but the UN would never figure that out.

Partition is probably the best solution (as it is Bosnia) but the UN is incapable of helping that occur.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that a unified Iraq is possible. The only way that will work is if the Iraqs are forced to take the initiative and they can't do that as long as foreign or U.S. troops are there to provide a crutch or scapegoat.