THE UN AND IRAQ (Part 1)
The bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad last month, presumably by forces resisting Washington's invasion and occupation of Iraq, has caused some sharp differences of opinion within the antiwar and progressive movements in the United States.
The issue itself has assumed greater importance since the Bush administration, now reeling from unexpected setbacks, wants the UN to become directly engaged in Iraq as a military handmaiden under the U.S. occupation authority. Several countries, now reluctant to participate in the occupation, have stated they might do so under UN auspices.
Much of the U.S. left, while not necessarily supporting the use of terrorism against civilian targets, has sought to offer explanations for why the UN office was considered a legitimate target Aug. 19 by Iraqis resisting occupation by a foreign power.
Many in the liberal antiwar camp have criticized at the attack, believing that the United Nations offers the best hope for easing the plight of the Iraqi people after two devastating wars, 13 years of economic sanctions and periodic bombings by the U.S. and UK. They fear the UN may now be reluctant to participate in the reconstruction of this battered country and society.
First and foremost in discussing this matter it must be recognized that the bombing — which took the life of the UN coordinator for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, along with some 20 others — was a direct consequence of President George Bush's decision to launch an unjust, immoral and illegal invasion in March and to impose a brutal colonial-type occupation upon the distressed people of Iraq.
Second, the deaths resulting from a truck-bombing where the UN was stationed cannot be compared to the Bush administration's bombing and shooting assault that claimed at least 10,000 civilian deaths, not to mention a minimum of 10,000 vastly outgunned Iraqi soldiers, mostly teenage conscripts who were no conceivable match for history's most powerful military state.
Third, the blast at the UN building, while aimed at the world organization building, was directed politically at the United States army of occupation. Former UN chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who debunked the Bush administration's pre-war fabrications about Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, wrote Aug. 31 that the bombing "was not an attack against the United Nations as an organization. Rather, it was designed, along with recent attacks against foreign civilian targets, to paralyze the nonmilitary organizations. The longer civil operations are stopped, the more anti-American discontent will grow because America, as occupying authority, is responsible for this, and all, operations in Iraq."
Ritter, a self-described conservative, shares with many liberals the view that "Political control of the occupation of Iraq must be transferred to the United Nations as soon as possible, and rapidly thereafter to the people of Iraq." His rationale seems to be that this is the only way in which the U.S. can avoid sinking into a quagmire and causing greater grief to Iraq in the process. In effect, he is hoping the UN will be able to extricate Washington from a possible political and military catastrophe of its own creation.
Many on the U.S. left and in the peace movement, however, oppose UN intervention — and particularly the notion of a multinational force under the Pentagons leadership — for precisely this reason. It basically allows the White House to launch a vicious war of aggression against a crippled country at peace and then, when the going gets rough, to seek cover behind the prestige of the United Nations, which in effect is putting its stamp of approval on Bush's barbaric adventure.
The UN has not even criticized the invasion. It recognizes as legitimate the puppet government the Bush administration is constructing, and bows to Washington's overall colonial control of occupied Iraq. Under such conditions, critics think that any transfer of government authority to "the people of Iraq," even by the UN, will contain the permanent stigmata of U.S. domination.
Further, according to this view, there are many political elements involved in the resistance movement, including those who opposed the previous government, and it seems possible that a mass uprising may eventuate in time. The struggle against foreign invasion and occupation is completely legitimate in terms of defending national independence and sovereignty.
Any effort to keep the U.S. in control of Iraq, either directly or behind the scenes, is counter to the interests of the people of Iraq. After Washington's violent seizure of Iraq in quest of exercising hegemony over the entire Middle East, the only role for the United Nations is to demand and preside over the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and occupation authorities. At that point, in collaboration with the people of Iraq, there is much the UN can do to help Iraq get back on its feet.
Speaking just after the Aug. 19 bombing, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the world organization's only purpose in Iraq is "to help the Iraqi people recover their independence and sovereignty." In these circumstances, it is necessary to look more deeply into the role of the United Nations, beginning with the summer of 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
The United Nations, at the strong urging of the U.S., applied stern sanctions against Iraq immediately after its Aug. 2 invasion. Quickly recognizing that the invasion was a foolhardy adventure predicated upon the notion that Washington would remain indifferent to its takeover of Kuwait, the Baghdad government within days sought to open negotiations for a face-saving withdrawal. As the U.S. slowly built up its forces for a massive attack on Iraq, President Saddam Hussein repeatedly offered one withdrawal plan after another, all spurned by the regime of President George Bush the First, with the backing of the United Nations. (See our series of articles, "Modern Iraq — Background to War," particularly part 4 in our last issue of the Mid-Hudson Activist Newsletter and part 5 in this issue, for information about the 1990-91 war and its aftermath. The series is available free by requesting it at jacdon at earthlink.net)
The war itself, which the UN energetically supported, began on Jan. 17, 1991, and lasted only a few weeks. Predictably, it was a one-sided slaughter. The entire country was bombed for 42 days. Up to 200,000 Iraqis died, while the U.S. lost fewer than 150 troops. The bombings destroyed the civil and military infrastructure of the country.
As Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. attorney general, wrote in his extraordinary history ("The Fire This Time — U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf"): "Instead of taking firm, united action toward Iraq based on negotiation with pacific intent and by peaceful means, the UN was quickly and easily converted into an instrumentality of war. When the assault began, the UN abided and even abetted the crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed by the United States. In the wake of the awful assault it authorized, there is a crippled, bleeding people with no effort by the UN to alleviate their suffering or to address the long-standing problems of the region. Instead, UN members continue to support sanctions against Iraq."
(To be concluded in part 2)