IRAQ: ONLY THE UN CAN END THE CATASTROPHE

By Flavio Lotti and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

ROME, Mar 1 2004 (IPS) - The current debate about the UN\’s ability to rectify the disasters left by the war in Iraq, rebuild the country, and lead it to democracy omits a fundamental fact: that the strength or weakness of the UN depends solely on the will of and resources provided by its member states, writes Flavio Lotti, secretary general of the Round Table for Peace. Only intervention by the UN in Iraq, with the appropriate powers and resources, is capable of ending the rampant violence, preventing civil war, depriving terrorism of space and support, and protecting the human rights of the Iraqis. In this article, the author writes that the US plan for reconstruction was very efficient in its destruction of existing institutions and the armed forces and in privatising state industries, but it has been a complete failure in building a new democratic state. Similarly, the security concept of the occupation troops and its implementation –in part delegated to private and mercenary companies– simply does not address the needs of the civilian population. A radical change in policy is urgently needed that gives the UN intervention in Iraq centrality, credibility, and support.

Like previous discussions about the efficiency of the United Nations in resolving conflicts, the current debate on its ability to rectify the disasters left by the war in Iraq, rebuild the country, and lead it to democracy omits a fundamental fact: that the strength or weakness of the UN depends solely on the will of and resources provided by its member states, beginning with those that make up the Security Council.

In truth, only intervention by the UN, with the appropriate powers and resources, is capable of ending the reigning violence, preventing civil war, depriving terrorism of space and support, and protecting the human rights of the Iraqis.

The Iraqis are the first to demand the intervention of the UN to accelerate and guide the devolution of sovereign powers to this occupied nation, such as the organisation of free and democratic elections.

Recently, the dispatch of a UN mission to discuss with all Iraqi parties ways to hold free elections was enough to open up new and important perspectives on a basis of dialogue and consensus.

Thus far the countries responsible for the war have demonstrated that they know how to destroy but they are not capable of building either freedom, peace, or democracy. Their battle plans were excellent; their peace plans were terrible.

The resolution of the grave local and international problems created by the war cannot occur without consideration of the way it was conceived and waged:

– This war was conceived in clear violation of international law and was therefore an illegal act.

– The occupation, which was thus a consequence of an illegal act, is similarly illegal.

– The war was justified through manipulation, deceit, and the invocation of false and inconsistent dangers and motives.

– The war brought about the end of the regime of Saddam Hussein but has submerged the country in chaos and violence. For the Iraqi people, the suffering not only hasn’t ended; in many ways it is even more severe. In this sense the war isn’t over but simply continues in new and terrible forms.

Iraq of the so-called ”post-war” has been transformed into one giant battle field. What we now have is a war of wars: the US war against terrorism, the war against the US occupation, the war of the fundamentalists against the US occupation, and the domestic war to win power.

This alarming picture demonstrates yet another failure of the military option. War isn’t a useful instrument to ”improve the world”. It doesn’t resolve problems; it aggravates them. It plugs one hole but opens up another ten.

The reconstruction efforts of the occupying forces have thus far brought no palpable benefit to the Iraqi people. The US plan for reconstruction, which was defined as oriented towards the establishment of a ”free market democracy”, was very efficient in its destruction of existing institutions and the armed forces and in privatising state industries, but it has been a complete failure in building a new democratic state. Similarly, the security concept of the occupation troops and its implementation –in part delegated to private and mercenary companies– simply does not address the needs of the civilian population.

The result is that insecurity, humiliation, frustration, and discontent are rife in the population. Religious, ethnic, and tribal groups are growing stronger. Organised crime is proliferating. The devastation of Iraqi society spreads and its fragmentation deepens as the country speeds towards balkanisation. And all of this is hailed as ”the passage from dictatorship to freedom”.

A radical change in policy is urgently needed that gives the UN intervention in Iraq centrality, credibility, and support. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)