UN Gives Bush Last Chance To Rescue Iraq

by Peter Dale Scott

(PNS) -- President Bush, in his press conference on April 13, announced one potentially important next step for Iraq: a willingness to work with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, to figure out the nature of the transitional Iraqi government which will begin on June 30th. Both Brahimi and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry have agreed with this UN involvement.

But neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry has yet isolated the crucial element needed for success in this transition. The administration must itself announce that the United Nations, and not the United States, will have the final word both in selecting the new transitional authority, and in granting it power.

Failure to give the United Nations this authority will make even more striking the analogies between America's Vietnam and Iraq occupations. In Vietnam the United States also made token transfers of power to puppet governments of its own choosing. The heaviest American fighting in Vietnam, and the heaviest casualties, occurred after this meaningless transition. They increased again after the so-called free elections of 1966.

One day after President Bush's speech, Brahimi announced what he foresees for Iraq: a caretaker Iraqi government led by a prime minister, a president and two vice presidents. It would govern until the elections scheduled for next January. Other UN officials in New York said that the caretaker government would be chosen by the United Nations, the current Governing Council, the U.S.-led coalition and a select group of Iraqi judges.

This formula for selecting the new government is quite similar to Washington's own. But although U.S. officials wish to expand the present Governing Council into a larger consultative assembly, Brahimi, aware of the need to begin anew, has proposed abolishing the present council, with a new consultative assembly perhaps to be established later.

The White House has expressed gratitude for Brahimi's proposals without endorsing them. In the non-committal words of White House press secretary Scott McClellan, "We appreciated the United Nations' help in moving forward on our strategy to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people by June 30."

Meanwhile, Lakhdar Brahimi said nothing about the United Nations assuming the power to make the transition. Furthermore, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has recently warned against expecting the possibility of an expanded UN presence in Iraq: "For the foreseeable future, insecurity is going to be a major constraint for us, and so I cannot say right now that I am going to be sending in a large UN team."

This is the weakness of Senator Kerry's repeated calls for enhanced UN involvement. Kerry has said that he "would be prepared to turn over to the UN the authority for the political transformation of Iraq and for the reconstruction of Iraq." Of Brahimi, Kerry has said: "He would be a perfect example of somebody to whom you could ask to really take over what Paul Bremer's doing, de-Americanize the effort and begin to put it under the United Nations umbrella."

This may make for an effective campaign issue. But it does not take into account the stated opposition of UN Secretary-General Annan. Nor at this moment is the United Nations equipped to take over the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq.

However the United Nations, in the safety of New York, could be granted the authority to supervise the transition to a new authority of its choosing. Senator Kerry has not yet called specifically for this. By asking for so much more, he too risks excluding a vital UN role before June 30.

No doubt there will be problems of coordination if the United Nations assumes the responsibility for choosing the new government, while the United States continues to have chief responsibility for establishing and maintaining security in Iraq. These problems will certainly be difficult, and potentially even embarrassing,

It is clear, however, that they would be less severe than if the United States continues on its present course, under the transparent disguise of a transitional government that it has empowered. What lies down that path is the likelihood of more and more violence, possibly extending beyond Iraq.

For any transitional authority to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people will not be easy. But unilateral selection and endorsement by Washington, far from conferring legitimacy, would only diminish it. And a new UN resolution on Iraq will not help if it is designed solely to sanction U.S.-led forces in the country.

What is needed is a clear break from present policies. Only a separate political initiative from the United Nations can confer this gift on a new transitional government: the promise, however tentative, of a fresh start.