Emily Haines Piano Partitures

Iraq and the UN: Unilateralism multilateralized

- Iraq and the UN-multilateralized unilateralism ..

TPSIPOL FORUM: NETWORK DEMOCRATIC
June 2004

IRAQ AND THE UN: unilateral - June 2004
multilateralize

By: Amb. Oswaldo de Rivero
SPECIAL for New Democratic Network

York. "A year after the invasion of Iraq, American society is virtually divided, the imperial claim that permeated certain neo-conservative American elites has deflated the Bush administration continues to lose electoral support. It influenced the failure of the occupation of Iraq, the steady increase in casualties in the American forces and the loss of authority moral media exposure of the torture carried out at Abu Ghraib prison.

analysts and the public begin to be convinced that the United States would be more of a Global Hegemon a true Empire. Afghanistan and Iraq prove that the superpower can defeat armies underdeveloped-guided weapons that are the highest state of military art, but can not occupy these countries, establish public order, public safety and to especially capture the hearts and minds of populations . As the historian Paul Kennedy, with some British pomp, the United States lacks im

imperial governance to put a Pax Britannica.

Professor Jeffrey Record of the War College of the United States believes that it has been a strategic mistake to mix Al-Qaeda in Iraq because Bin Laden is in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda around the world, while the Government of the United States spends one billion dollars week and still mired in urban warfare in Iraq, which only serves to recruit more rejection of the occupation and most fanatical terrorists against the United States.

Confirming this strategic mistake Harry Wilkerson, Chief of Staff of the Secretary of State Colin Powell, referring, no doubt, neoconservatives in the Pentagon, has publicly denounced the "utopian" who never knew war and now send men and women to death. Also, the Washington Post notes that a long urban warfare in Iraq is not sustainable for the extra costs will have on the taxpayer and because it begins to have difficulty recruiting new troops for the military. Concerned

all these criticisms, the armed resistance in Iraq and the fall in voting intentions for the forthcoming presidential elections in November, the Bush administration a few weeks ago returned to the Security Council in seeking a multilateral cloak of legitimacy cover unilateral occupation and a way to hell in Iraq. After weeks of negotiations, an achievement that the Council approve Resolution 1546 endorsing a new interim government "sovereign" Iraqi, thus to "complete" the U.S. occupation. That is, from June 30, ceases American Occupation Authority led by Paul Bremer III and establishing an interim government "sovereign" and a timetable for democratizing Iraq and create the conditions for the American forces leave Iraq gradually mid-2005.

Ultimately, the political nature of the recent Resolution 1546, adopted unanimously by the Security Council can describe the oxymoron: "Unilateralism" multilateralize ". What does this mean? Means that the Security Council has legalized ex post facto the current occupation of the U.S. unilateral giving multilateral appearance.

This appearance multilateral unilateral American occupation has been achieved due to the practice of realpolitik by all permanent members of the Security Council. On the one hand, the United States showed unprecedented flexibility provided to achieve a Council resolution that gave legitimacy to the occupation and a quick and graceful exit from Iraq. The American delegation accepted without much resistance, criticism and amendments to its draft resolution on behalf of Council members. For its part, France, Russia and China, made him feel United States, without them, there is no multilateral legal solution possible in Iraq, but also to accept realpolitik, but without conviction, ending the American occupation and its replacement by an interim government "sovereign" Iraq. Therefore, Resolution 1546, says the American magazine The Nation only provides "an illusion of legitimacy and is only a modest victory multiletarismo."

Indeed, this travesty of "Uniltilateralismo-multilateralize" contains a curious series of artificial political formulas. First, the Security Council endorses a new interim Iraqi government "sovereign" and thus ending the U.S. occupation. However, this interim government "sovereign" was not elected but selected by the Secretary General's envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, who in turn received strong "suggestions" of Mr. Paul Bremer III, head of the American Occupation Provisional Authority. It is then a "sovereign" government chosen by an international civil servant and not their people, which is the only way is acquired sovereignty. The interim government is a rare political creature, because it is legal internationally, to be recognized by the Security Council, but has no national legitimacy, not having been elected by its people. Within this line of thought, Bathsheba Crocker, a former legal adviser to the Department of State, now analyst at the Center for Strategic Studies in Washington, believes further that Iraq's interim government has no sovereignty, because it does not exercise full control over oil resources and funds for reconstruction.


Secondly, resolution 1546, transforming the current military occupation of 140 000 men (95% U.S.) in a "multilateral force" In this way the occupying power is internationally recognized and legalized by the Security Council as a force, and not occupation, but safety of the new interim government, despite the fact that this multinational force is not subordinate to it. Indeed, the relationship between the new interim government "sovereign" Iraqi and multinational force is expressed in a "letters" exchanged between the U.S. government and the interim government, which is an annex to Resolution 1546.

These letters state that the multinational forces and Iraq's interim government, to cooperate and consult in all matters of security. Thus there is no subordination of multilateral forces to the new interim government "sovereign" Iraq. Furthermore, it is is organizing a U.S. embassy in Iraq with more than two thousand employees, which the New York Times called "the shadow government "(the Shadow Government) These devices configured to Iraq more like a protectorate than a sovereign state.

Finally, resolution 1546 multilateralize try as much as possible the occupation trying to involve the United Nations. The mission is given to the UN is primarily to advise an election for a National Assembly to replace the current interim government "sovereign." This assembly will elect a transitional government of Iraq and also advise the UN to draft a constitution from 2005. After United Nations to assist the Transitional Government to organize elections for a permanent government in Iraq from of December 31, 2005. In addition, United Nations to help coordinate and organize humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Iraq, although the latter is under the leadership of the United States has already allocated 18.400 billion for reconstruction.

However, despite the important role assigned to the UN after the tragic experience of the UN bombing, which killed its envoy Sergio Viera de Mello, all of this United Nations involvement to be seen as that Resolution 1546 provides that the UN involved, "according to the circumstances", in other words, according to security on the ground there, and is still there. To this end, hope to create a special force of United Nations security.

So far, the sovereignty of Iraq's interim government to which he refers to Resolution 1546, does not come to an agreement on the ground with insurgent groups, which are important real actors in Iraq. Resolution 1546 is so far the product of diplomatic negotiations in New York and not the product of a negotiation with the insurgent forces in Iraq. For these reasons, to be seen if it will be effective in reality. Hopefully, the promise of a democratic process and a possible departure of American forces from mid-2005, he became convinced insurgents to achieve with them a permanent ceasefire to allow Iraq to build physical and institutional. If not, the Resolution 1546 will be another worthless paper of the United Nations.

To date, fighting continues in Iraq. American casualties continue to mount and Iraq and terrorism becoming more innocent victims and the recent sabotage of pipelines has been a blow to its stability to halve Iraq's oil exports. The insurgents, as expected have begun attacking the new interim government "sovereign" to provoke a response from the "multinational force" that is, the American forces and thus to show that to the American occupation is an artifice. The truth is that multilateral diplomacy can achieve many miraculous essay on paper, but they are the developments on the ground that ultimately decide.

Will met the timetable for a democratically elected National Assembly to elect a transitional government, draft a constitution and finally achieve the exit of American forces, without having negotiated with insurgent forces agreement to end the violence? May be effective this Resolution 1546 without an agreement between the ultra suspicious Kurdish minority, who already have an army of 100 000 men and autonomy close to independence, with the ambitious Sunni minority, who have historically had the power in Iraq and want it back, and above all, it can achieve an agreement between the Kurds and Sunnis to the Shiite majority protest ultra, was always suppressed and now has, as ever, the opportunity to turn Iraq into an Islamic state?

Iraq Could it be a viable nation state ", where Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites are tolerated only because there is a Security Council resolution? The truth is that Iraq has never existed as a viable nation state. It was always an artificial national entity, a petro-autocracy, created in 1922 by the British Empire, which only has maintained the appearance of a unitary nation-state because there has been an autocratic monarchy and then, from 1957, a Baathist tyranny and especially Saddam Hussein was spending one billion dollars annually in repression.

Will the current interim regime "sovereign" but not chosen with the alleged Forces Agreements, but are 95% American, and a reluctant United Nations, change history, to reinvent Iraq as a petro-democracy thrives, pluralistic and federal, which is an example for the entire Arab world, as desired by the American administration. Will not be easy, because democracy is not just elections and writing constitutions, but the maturation of a historical-cultural, civic equality between men and women, secular, religious and political tolerance, civic virtues practiced very little, so far, in Arab countries, let alone in Iraq, where today there are over 500 tribes, 4 ethnic groups, Arab, Kurd, Turkmen and Assyrian, divided both by 2 major trends Muslim religious rivals, the Shiites and the Sunni, and all , plagued by mistrust and resentment.

New York, June 2004