The Hindu : U.N. can heal Iraqi wounds

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Sep 03, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

U.N. can heal Iraqi wounds

By R. Kannan

For the Iraqis, a more hands-on U.N. involvement will signal the beginning of the end of the occupation. And for the occupying powers, it will not only mean sharing authority but also the burden of winning the peace.

THE UNITED Nations could minister a healing touch in Iraq. The world body alone can breathe legitimacy into efforts at Iraq's reconstruction, even though the U.S. occupation coordinator, Paul Bremer, has questioned the rationale of the idea. "What exactly is it that happens on the ground that makes things better if the U.N. is in charge of reconstruction," he asked recently.

Reconstruction is not simply about infrastructure alone. In the case of Iraq, it is as much about healing the wounds of the occupation — by restoring Iraqi pride and dignity. The U.N. is best suited to achieve this. Iraqis would be more amenable to the idea of the international community mending their nation than the occupying powers.

The U.N.'s acceptability stems from its singular aim to create a win-win situation for all. Its moral stature and impartiality make it a useful front and format for the sides to deal with a nettlesome situation. Frequently this involves both substance and form.

Remember the Suez crisis. An outraged international community led by both the U.S. and the USSR demanded that the British and the French withdraw from the canal. How was this to be done without losing face? The U.N. helped save face as a 10-nation U.N. Emergency Force relieved the Anglo-French troops. An impartial U.N. was acceptable to the Egyptians. Iraq requires a contextual change in both substance and form. A robust U.N. political role there (when security permits it and the United Nations Security Council mandates it) will favour both the Iraqis and the occupying powers. For the Iraqis, a more hands-on U.N. involvement will signal the beginning of the end of the occupation.

And for the occupying powers, as many have suggested, it will not only mean sharing authority but also the burden of winning the peace.

The U.N. did not authorise the military action against Iraq. Until the last moment, the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, urged the Security Council to find a way to prevent a war. When war came, Mr. Annan characterised it as a "sad day" for the U.N. and the international community.

The aftermath of the war presented an equally difficult choice. Iraqi humanity cried for help. Involvement nonetheless could be perceived by some as U.N. acquiescence to a situation conducted outside the framework of the Charter. Indeed, some like Mary Robinson, the former High Commissioner for Human Rights, have suggested that the August 19 bombing against the U.N. in Iraq stemmed from this misperception. Mr. Annan exhorted the Council to act by putting Iraqi interests in the forefront. The Council recognised the occupying powers as the "Authority" under international law even whilst making its preferences clear: restoration of Iraqi sovereignty, and Iraqi political control. The U.N. was given a "vital role" to coordinate humanitarian assistance and to aid the realisation of the goals.

Iraqis have seen much suffering in the past two decades — the senseless Iran-Iraq war and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait leading to reprisal and sanctions. The current occupation of Iraq, therefore, "must be one of the most humiliating periods in history for these people," as the late Sergio Vieira de Mello, the Secretary-General's envoy in Iraq, rightfully observed long before the horrifying events of August 19.

The need to restore Iraq to Iraqis has never been felt more acutely. A broadly representative Iraqi Governing Council has been in place since July 13. The U.N. sees this as an "important step" towards empowering Iraqis in what, realistically speaking, will be a drawn-out and complicated process since there can be no quick end to the occupation.

The Arab League, made up of 22 States, is indifferent to the Council, for now. Much distance needs to be traversed before a democratically elected Iraqi Government takes its rightful place in the comity of nations. The U.N. has had experience in bridging the hiatus between the real and the ideal in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Eastern Slavonia in Croatia, and in East Timor. In the case of Iraq, the Secretary-General has said, "There is a pressing need to set out a clear and specific sequence of events leading to the end of military occupation."

From the Arab League, to the French to the Indians, the preference is for a U.N. umbrella for getting involved in Iraq. Mr. Annan has made it clear that he does not see a role for the lightly armed U.N. blue helmets. So what is being explored is a multinational force with U.N. authority to enforce peace. There is precedence. Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan have all benefited in varying degrees from the presence of a U.N.-authorised multinational force.

Yet it is important not to expect miracles by this transformation alone. The situation in Iraq is extremely complex. Iraqi resistance, as some have observed, is still unwilling to distinguish between impartial aid workers and others. Improving the security climate is therefore critical and is a prerequisite for not just holding elections but providing space for the U.N. and other aid agencies to play their rightful roles. A higher political profile for the U.N., one hopes, will come sooner for it can only advance the day when Iraqis will govern themselves.

(R. Kannan heads civil affairs with the U.N. peacekeeping force in Cyprus. The views expressed here are his own.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Blasts and breakthrough

A limited deal on drugs

Internal accountability

U.N. can heal Iraqi wounds