UNSC provides legitimacy to US-British rule in Iraq!

Syria, the only Arab member in the Council, remained absent and the resolution had the concurrence of other 14 members including Russia, France and Germany. It is intriguing to note that it has been a sheer coincidence that at a time when the UN resolution was adopted, it was revealed in the media that Pentagon had been investigating how CIA went so wrong in their reports as to the presence of WMD in Iraq. A team of US analysts will review reports from secret agencies to compare with what has actually been discovered in Iraq since the war has ended. A question has been asked whether the Bush administration tried to pressure the intelligence agencies to produce reports that supported the administration's positions on Iraq.

Russia, France and Germany were opposed to war on Iraq and it was considered that any resolution of the UN Security Council to lift sanctions would meet opposition from them because under the resolution of 687 of 1991 the economic sanctions could only be lifted after the UN certified destruction of WMD in Iraq and at one stage the three countries (Russia and France carry their veto-powers) insisted on sending UN inspectors to Iraq to verify the position. It seems however that they have agreed to have this resolution adopted -- what they call "a compromise resolution".

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The question is why did Russia, France and Germany agree to this resolution?

In the decade between the end of the Cold War and the start of the war on terrorism, the military balance between the US and Europe widened. European powers failed to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War era, allowing the US to reign supreme. While the US has stressed on "hard" power, the Europeans concentrated on "soft" power. The US offered protection from Jerusalem to Seoul and stationed more than one million men and women under arms on four continents. Its military spending reportedly equals the combined defence budget of the next 14 highest-spending countries. Europe has been a silent spectator to the American power at unassailable heights from space to the seas.

It is noted that the US, Britain, Germany, France and Russia are after all in the same boat because they had supplied chemical, biological and other weapons and technology to the former Saddam Hussein's regime. The five G-8 members -- US, Britain, Russia, France and Germany-- sell two-thirds of all global arms to other countries and on 19 May Amnesty International in its report titled " A Catalogue of Failures: G-8 Arms Exports and Human Rights Violations" accused them of arming some of the worst abusers of human rights. Furthermore the G-8 countries (US, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Japan and Russia) are expected to meet next month in Evian (France) to coordinate their actions on urgent global issues, including economy and terrorism. Iraq's war has damaged the credibility of the UN, unity of NATO and the European Union. The big powers have realised the value of the UN and the unity of Atlantic Alliance for their strategic and other reasons. The quicker is the rapprochement between the US and the major European powers, the better it is for the strength of the Atlantic Alliance.

The truth is that winners take it all and in international relations victory has its own momentum and often provides veneer of legitimacy to the end-product. American predominance is the central feature of the current geopolitical environment and there is no competition for primacy of American power, although Russia, France and Germany prefer a multipolar world. Russia, France and Germany realised that victors have come to stay in Iraq, whether they like it or not. If they refuse to cooperate with the victors, they are likely to lose both politically and economically.

Besides the above strategic reasons, all the members of the Council including the three countries are genuinely concerned with humanitarian conditions of Iraqi people. Not only the people were deprived of basic goods and medicines because of harsh economic sanctions but also had to face worsening conditions after the devastating war. Until this day Baghdad had no electricity and water in most areas and law and order situation has been most precarious. It seems the sooner the sanctions are lifted the better will be conditions of Iraqi people.

There were intensive discussions among the members of the Council to make it palatable to all members. Both sides claimed to give concessions to arrive at a compromise draft. It was reported that the three countries were able to force the US to make 90 changes to its original draft resolution which was presented a week ago.

It is believed that Russia, France and Germany forced the US to make the following concessions:

The Security Council shall review the implementation of the resolution within a year.

A continued, though limited, role of the UN in humanitarian, reconstruction and administration in Iraq until an Iraqi authority is installed.

The possible return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq.

Up to six months given to phase out the UN oil-for-food programme, allowing the Secretary General to honour billions in contracts.

Russia, France and Germany not to be excluded from contracts in reconstruction of Iraq.

The key area of debate was the role of the UN in postwar Iraq. Under the terms of the resolution the UN Secretary General will be allowed to appoint a "Special representative" with "independent powers" to oversee the UN relief and reconstruction efforts and to participate in the transition to an Iraqi authority. It is expected that NATO forces including those from Germany may soon be stationed in Iraq. The French Foreign Minister Dominque de Villepin said at a press conference on 21 May that " the UN is back in the game" although he stated that the resolution did not go as far as France had hoped.

What do the US and Britain get?

On balance, the compromise resolution appears to indicate diplomatic victory for the US and Britain. First, for the US and Britain, the resolution accorded them the status of occupying forces under the Geneva Conventions. This provides legitimacy of the presence of the US and British forces in the country. From now on, the US and Britain are responsible for arms inspections and may keep the UN informed of their activities in the field. Second, there is no time limit stipulated in the resolution for the occupying forces to leave Iraq and this will allow the US and Britain to govern Iraq for an unspecified period of time until an indigenous Iraqi authority is installed. Third, money generated by sale of Iraqi oil will provide what they call "Development Funds" for reconstruction of Iraq and the US and Britain do not have to spend their tax-payers' money. Fourth, US-British companies will get most lucrative contracts.

The resolution however did not satisfy some of the Iraqis who could be a part of the interim administration in Iraq. In Baghdad, a spokesman of the US-backed Iraqi National Congress said that his group was concerned about the resolution's description of a proposed interim administration for Iraq as a "provisional authority" rather than a "provisional government". The Iraqi National Congress fears that the use of the phrase "authority" demonstrated that the US and Britain might take years to hand over 'real' power to Iraqi people.

Conclusion

Foreign policy must be judged not only on grounds of national interests but also on grounds of prudence. If unilateralism becomes strategy of the US, it may become self-defeating as it increases global instability and insecurity. After Iraq's war, it is quite natural for the US to fear further threat of terrorist attack and the stress of living in fear can only be reduced by multilateral approach and adherence to the rule of international law. The Bush administration has learnt the hard way that it cannot easily act alone in postwar Iraq.

With this UN resolution, the US will have a legal road to Baghdad. Collective ways of doing business in Iraq will provide the US to have the moral high ground. The Truman administration after the Second World War understood that the success of containment of the Soviet Union required cooperation of Europe and the Bush administration appears to have made the connection between its war on global terrorism and re-engagement with "old" Europe and the UN. At the same time Russia, France and Germany had to swallow the bitter pill that American primacy to define contours of politics in every part of the world has come to stay for many years to come.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.