Opinion - News Analysis   

Only a U.N.-led process can halt the Iraq catastrophe

Menzies Campbell

The British Government cannot justify the continuing presence of its troops unless it shows it has learned from its failures.

THE BRITISH and American Governments like to pretend that things are getting better in Iraq. They are wrong. The facts belie their optimism. Between 2004 and 2005 the number of car and roadside bombs doubled, and suicide bombs trebled. Electricity supplies and oil production are still below pre-war levels. Iraq stands on the threshold of civil war. The illegal invasion, launched on a flawed prospectus and with little understanding of the consequences, has resulted in the deaths of about 3,000 coalition soldiers, 40,000 civilians, and many U.N. and humanitarian workers.

Since 2003 the coalition has met neither its obligations nor its objectives. There was a catastrophic failure to plan for post-war Iraq, followed by mis-judgment and incompetence. This has been overlaid by a disproportionate use of military force, including gross human rights abuses.

The legitimacy of the coalition, always questionable, is now just not accepted by most Iraqis. A 2005 poll for the British Ministry of Defence found that 8 out of 10 Iraqis opposed the presence of coalition forces. About 70-90 per cent want to see a timeline for the withdrawal of coalition troops.

Governments in denial?

Faced with this reality, the British and American Governments seem to be in denial. The last time the British Government allotted parliamentary time for a full debate on Iraq was July 20, 2004, which was only the second occasion since March 18, 2003. It appears to be running scared of critical evaluation. The coalition does not have an exit strategy, nor does it have a strategy for staying. But to continue as it has been is not a credible option.

The foundation of a new strategy should be a peace process led by the U.N. to accelerate national reconciliation and the internationalisation of support for Iraq. If the problems of internecine conflict within Iraq have international dimensions, so too must the solutions. A new strategy would seek to build on the policies set out by the Iraqi Prime Minister and work towards an international "compact," similar to that agreed with Afghanistan, setting out the commitments of all sides and a comprehensive security and reconstruction strategy.

Only an international solution can shore up the effectiveness of Iraq's Government, improve the delivery of essential services and facilitate the end of the militarisation.

What should that solution contain? First, establishing a regional contact group would strengthen the engagement of Iraq's neighbours, and require them to play a constructive role in reconstruction. A contact group could play a significant role in talking to insurgent groups, improving border controls and promoting economic stability.

Secondly, enhanced measures to train, equip, and professionalise Iraqi security forces are needed to de-politicise them and improve security. Coalition forces should move towards training, advising and equipping.

Thirdly, a comprehensive, U.N.-led disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration strategy is necessary to make a reality of the Iraqi Prime Minister's policy that the militias must merge with the national security forces.

Fourthly, there should be an end to systematic indefinite detentions by Iraqi and U.S. forces, and full access should be granted to U.N. human rights monitors and the Red Cross. Fifth, the reconstruction process must be expedited and legitimised (60 per cent of Iraqis believe the U.N. should have the lead role). Increasing UNDP and the World Bank involvement would enhance transparency and accountability. Donors must play their part and deliver on their aid pledges.

Sixthly, Iraq needs a programme for phased security transfer and withdrawal of coalition troops. The Iraqis view them as occupiers. A limited British withdrawal is taking place but U.S. troops are redeploying in other parts of the country. The U.K. should aim to achieve a series of withdrawals, in parallel with the U.S., according to milestones in the stabilisation and reconstruction process. A transparent agreement with the Iraqi administration would help to counter the perception of occupation and illegitimacy. —

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

(The writer is leader of the British Liberal Democrat party.)

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

Stories in this Section

A flawed process
The jatropha opportunity
Avoiding an unequal social bargain
Meeting ground in the mountains
A "peacekeeping" mission goes wrong
Only a U.N.-led process can halt the Iraq catastrophe
Return of mining raises hope in Congo
Corrections and clarifications
Mumbai floods
NLC disinvestment
The agrarian crisis
Welcome move
On legal education
World Cup football

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu