|
|
|
|
Click
here for full text of UN draft
resolution on Iraq. |
|
The
recent Bush administration’s draft UN resolution proposing a
new role for the United Nations in Iraq would be a welcome step
if it was done to help improve the lives of Iraqi citizens. But
the reassessment is not a reflection of any concern regarding
the illegality of the occupation, the lack of legitimacy of the
US presence in Iraq, or the impact on Iraqis of Washington’s
abject failure to provide for even the minimal humanitarian
needs of the population. Instead, it reflects a growing concern
regarding what the New York Times called the “high cost
of occupation” for the US in Iraq – costs both in US
soldiers’ lives and in dollars.
The
High Cost of Occupation
The
high price in dollars is being paid by US taxpayers as the
administration is planning an emergency request of $60-70
billion to cover current fighting and reconstruction costs. This
follows $79 billion that was released in April 2003. The
beneficiaries are corporations close to the Bush administration,
notably Halliburton and Bechtel, which are earning billions of
dollars. The high price in lives is being paid by US troops
assigned to state-building duties for which they have no
training, by Iraqi translators and other Iraqis working with and
for the US occupation authorities, and by UN humanitarian staff
who are seen as working under or within the US occupation
structure. The highest price in lives is paid by Iraqi
civilians, both in armed attacks and as a result of the lack of
sufficient clean water, electricity, and medical care.
Any
new UN resolution aimed at providing more legitimacy for the US-UK
occupation of Iraq should be opposed. |
|
The
current proposal under consideration calls for the creation of a
UN-endorsed multilateral military force to join the US
occupation force in Iraq. It would function as a separate,
parallel force with a separate command structure, but the
commander would be an American. US officials make clear their
intention that the multilateral force would be accountable to
the Pentagon’s strategic control. There is a history of this
kind of US control of UN peacekeeping operations through
imposing a US general or admiral as UN commander. This was US
practice during the Clinton administration in Somalia, Haiti,
and elsewhere.
But
what is unprecedented is that the plan does not envision
Washington even sharing authority and decisionmaking with the UN
itself or with the governments sending international
contingents, let alone ending its occupation and turning over
full authority to the UN to oversee a rapid return to Iraqi
independence.
As
occupying powers, the US and UK are required to provide for the
humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. |
|
A
number of countries, facing US pressure, might be prepared to
send troops with a new UN resolution providing an international
imprimatur. US officials have actually described a new UN
resolution’s value as providing “political cover” to
governments
wanting to participate but restrained by public opposition.
Countries under particular pressure to send troops include
Pakistan, Turkey, and India. It is likely that many members of
the Security Council might be willing to cave in to such
pressure. Any resolution, however, would also have to win
approval from Russia, Germany, and especially France – which
have made positive remarks about the resolution but are likely
to demand more control for the Security Council over the
mission. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said that
“the eventual arrangements cannot just be the enlargement or
adjustment of the current occupation forces. We have to install
a real international force under a mandate of the United Nations
Security Council.”
The
new UN resolution also encourages other countries to contribute
funds, as well as troops, to the US occupation. A donors
conference is scheduled for late October in Spain, a key US
ally. If a UN resolution is passed before that date with little
acrimony in the Security Council, new amounts of financial
support will be forthcoming.
What
Should Be Done
-
Any
new UN resolution aimed at providing more legitimacy for the
US-UK occupation of Iraq should be opposed. Countries should
not send troops or funds to maintain or strengthen or
“internationalize” Washington’s occupation.
-
Oppose
Richard Perle’s claim that “our main mistake is that we
haven’t succeeded in working closely with Iraqis before
the war so that an Iraqi opposition could have been able to
immediately take the matter in hand.” Instead, the
over-reliance of the Bush administration on the claims of
the exiled Iraqi opposition, driven by self-interest and
ideological fervor rather than grounded information, is one
of the main reasons for the US failure to anticipate the
post-war crisis in Iraq.
-
Only
after the US-UK occupation has ended should the United
Nations and a multilateral peacekeeping force return to
Iraq. Their mandate should be for a very short and defined
period, with the goal of assisting Iraq in reconstruction
and overseeing election of a governing authority.
-
As
belligerent powers who initiated the war, and as occupying
powers, the US and the UK are required to provide for the
humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. While their military
occupation should be ended immediately, Washington and
London remain obligated to pay the continuing costs of
Iraq’s reconstruction, including the bulk of the cost of
UN humanitarian and peacekeeping deployments. The US should
immediately make public a realistic estimate for the cost of
reconstruction in Iraq. Washington should turn over funds to
UN authority, beginning with a direct grant of at least $75
billion (the initial amount spent on waging the war) for
reconstruction work. These funds should be raised from an
excess profits tax on corporations benefiting from the war
and post-war privatization in Iraq, as well as from Pentagon
budget lines initially aimed at carrying out war in Iraq.
-
The
US should use this moment to reverse its longstanding
opposition to the creation of a standing UN rapid-reaction
military force, beginning with reconstituting the UN
Charter-mandated Military Staff Committee.
*
This article war
originally published in Foreign
Policy in Focus.
Phyllis
Bennis is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies
and writes regularly for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org).
You can reach him at pbennis@compuserve.com
|
