Peace-making in Iraq: some musings

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said on Tuesday that Iraq is "a problem of the whole world” but stopped short of saying the UN should take over the US mess in that country.  Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Iraq, however is not so reticicent.  He has an editorial in the NY Times today saying yes, definitely the UN should take over.  What else can we do?

This is it.  This is how the US is gonna finally get out of Iraq.  Pretty soon Bush will start dropping hints here and there and his advisors and speechwriters will try to make it seem like this was their plan all along, the logical conclusion of their original impeccable argument for the invasion and occupation of a sovereign foreign country.

The reality is that ever since the UN refused to endorse the Iraq venture in the first place, the US was hoping just to ignore the international organization into oblivion.  Make them irrelevant.  Except for when we needed them to legitimize our puppet government there.  Then they could get involved.  But not too much.  The UN, for its part, has reciprocated and tried to steer clear of the whole mess.  No one wants to be associated with an immoral and illegal colonialist war on the part of the world's only remaining super power.

Now, after so much in Iraq has literally blown up in our faces, the UN might be our only way out.   Doesn't the irony of that just kill you??

Personally, I think sending the UN in is, maybe, less than ideal.  It might not be their fault, but they're not very strong and sometimes they are a tool of the US which limits their legitimacy.  It's just that it seems there may be no other options really. 

But wait, I wonder about something else though.  This is really crazy but hear me out.  One of the reasons the first Gulf War was "successful" was because so many Middle Eastern countries supported it.  They saw Saddam as a threat (and at that time he actually was.  Grown strong on US support during his war with Iran, he was not at all the embattled leader weakened by ten years of harsh economic sanctions that we found when we invaded the country in 2003 --though one has to wonder how much of a threat he was even then, after the Iran-Iraq war that lasted what? ten years?).  If a coalition peacekeeping force of Muslim countries in the Middle East were sent in instead, I wonder what the outcome would be?

I don't know enough about the region to hazard a guess to this question.  Would various countries try to influence the outcome to their own benefit?  Sure, that's only rational.  But could it be democratic and mutually beneficial to Iraqis and the rest of the region, even if --I imagine-- it wouldn't be at all in the U.S. interest and we would probably officially oppose such an idea.  (We probably would like to hang on to our hegemony).  I don't know.  But I do know who to ask: Dr. Juan Cole, professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan!

Dear Professor Cole,
I read Zalmay Khalilzad's editorial in the NY Times today saying that the US supports letting the United Nations try to clean up our mess in Iraq.  Leaving aside the irony of that idea when we've ignored them ever since they didn't support the invasion in the first place, I have several questions for you.  One, do you think the U.N. would do it?  If so, do you think it would work, and how would a UN peacekeeping force be received in the country?  And three, most importantly, what if it were NOT the UN but rather some kind of coalition of Muslim countries in the Middle East?  Is anyone that you know of exploring or suggesting such an idea?  What do you think of it?

Thanks for your time in responding and sharing your views about this and for your information, I have posted this on my blog, www.luckywhitegirl.com, along with a note saying that I would ask for your input.  I'd like permission to either publish your answer there or link to a post on your blog that would answer this question.

thanks,
barb howe
gainesville, florida

His answer

Hi, Barb.  It seems likely the US will need to depend on the UN increasingly as it withdraws.  But Iraq is way beyond UN capabilities and would strain the organization's resources.  Cambodia is the last time it tried something like this 

cheers  Juan

I'm disappointed that he didn't say anything about the idea of a regional peacekeeping force going in.  Why not?  I know it sounds naive (I was anticipating a snarky comment by someone saying as much) but I still think it's an idea worth looking into.  First, let's not call it a "muslim peacekeeping force" --that would suggest it'd be based on religion and I don't mean that.  I mean a regional peacekeeping force, made up of countries in the region: Iran (according to some already there), Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (!!), the UAE, Syria, Lebanon (don't laugh)... well, okay some of these countries don't get along so well themselves (and can you imagine how well having Kuwait in there would go over?).... but the point is that you'd think one would want to inject some independence (i.e. autonomy from the US) into the process and if the U.N. is not independent enough who else would be?  Iran.  Jordan, Egypt, the Saudis and Kuwait are all US allies, Syria I don't know and Lebanon depends on if they are recovered enough from last year's war.  Sigh.

I admit I'm just thinking out loud now.  You're right.  This wouldn't work.  It's gotta be the UN then.  Who else is there?  OPEC?  (that was a joke)... Maybe it'd be easier to concentrate on how to make the UN better suited for the task.  The US should be forbidden to have any vote on the matter at all.  Maybe new rules could be written for the Security Council to say that in this particular case the US must step aside in the interests of humanity (I think the Security Council should be abolished completely. It's elitest.  The General Assembly is where all hope for peace and justice lies.  But as that's about as likely as a tranquil night in Baghdad.  For now it's enough to hope that maybe we could just get this one concession?)

So the UN sends in a peacekeeping force made up of countries agreed upon by all parties as being as objective and neutral as possible.  And the US sits down and shuts up.  After impeaching and then apologizing for our asshole president, of course.  Oh and financing the lion's share of the cost of the mission.  Cause we caused the mess in the first place. It's only fair.  So there ya go.  Peace in the Middle East!  Easy as pie!  lol....

 

Comments

[Paul -V-]

It's too late for the UN to solve anything or bail anyone out of this mess. The best they can do is prevent a few key utilities from being destroyed.

Even without the 2003 invasion, Iraq was long overdue for a civil war. That country was an artificial political body set up by the British Empire; Saddam was the only person brutal enough to keep everything together.

If the US wants to help, we should take the following steps:

1) An orderly, no-strings-attached, withdrawal of all troops within twelve months.
2) Congress should issue an apology and hold South African style truth hearings.
3) Congress should authorize reparations to be paid out to whatever powers arise within that geographical area once the dust settles.
4) Bush & Co must be handed over to the Hague to answer for their crimes.