Last Sunday during Joel Dahl's Political Round Table radio show, I spoke out against giving the United Nations any role in Iraq. However, the discussion that followed got me thinking -- I wasn't so sure anymore that the United Nations was unsuitable for rebuilding Iraq. So I decided to do some research on the topic.
First, let's deal with the arguments in support of the United Nations. The United Nations has ample experience in handling humanitarian crises and working with non-governmental organizations in distributing aid. It has a track record of rebuilding judicial and constabulary systems in places like East Timor and Kosovo. It is known for its impartial supervision and monitoring of elections in democratizing countries. Moreover, an internationally supported government in Iraq working in collaboration with the United Nations will be more credible -- as in Afghanistan. A war crimes tribunal in Iraq headed by the United Nations will be more trustworthy. If the World Bank is involved, oil sales will be utilized to meet the needs of the Iraqis rather than that of the victors.
"Restoration" of America's soft power in the third world can only be achieved if we let the United Nations play a major role in Iraq, or so says Joseph Nye, Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. America's disproportionate military power and economic wealth will appear to be a lesser threat to the world's poorer countries if the United Nations is allowed to rebuild Iraq.
And now, reasons for keeping the United Nations out of Iraq: We have talked about the United Nations' record in restoring peace and democracy to Kosovo, East Timor and so on, but we haven't mentioned the fact that Iraq is a totally different ball game. East Timor and Kosovo are barely larger than Rhode Island; Iraq is home to 22 million people. In both these cases the United Nations took over from other peace-keeping forces. Both had government structures in place which were brought into transition immediately. Iraq, on the other hand -- after years of Saddam's rule -- has no such arrangements. It will be a most difficult task to pacify such a large country, with at least three warring factions.
Is the United Nations a coherent actor? Of course not. Most of the power is wielded by the Security Council, which has been excessively divisive in the recent past. With the squabbles over Iraq that took place between its veto-wielding members before the war, how can we ever expect it to act cohesively after the war? The Secretary General has very little authority, which implies a very weak chain of command. Moreover, most of its work is done by agencies that are not directly governed by anyone and have their own agendas and interests. A few more acute problems at the United Nations: bickering among its different departments and agencies, deep tensions between its civilian and military branches and, finally, the variable and unreliable quality and commitment of U.N. personnel, as pointed out by Neil MacFarlane, director of Oxford's Center for International Studies.
Now, it is time to analyze both of these sets of arguments. As I have mentioned in an earlier article, the government in Afghanistan is not exactly a success story.
Providing humanitarian aid to East Timor and Kosovo is child's play when compared to Iraq. Moreover, the United Nations has failed miserably in Somalia. It has conveniently decided to ignore Chechnya, one of the worst humanitarian disasters in all history. The handling of the crises in Rwanda and Burundi does not do much for the United Nation's reputation. The United Nations has clearly failed in its efforts to disarm Iraq -- a fact that does not speak well for its reputation of resolving political or security issues.
Soft power is influenced by a country's ability to influence international trade, politics and so on, which the United States clearly does in today's world. The inability of Germany, Russia, France and China to form a counter-block is evidenced by the lack of support from their own neighbors.
In conclusion, it must be pretty apparent that the United Nations is not up to the job of rebuilding Iraq. This is, of course, not to say that it is a redundant organization. Its experience in providing humanitarian aid, though limited in its success, should certainly be utilized in Iraq. U.N. electoral assistance should also prove to be useful in Iraq's transition to a post-Hussein administration. The United Nations is an essential international organization and it plays a very constructive role in world affairs, but until it has more authority, a better command structure and a more independent role, it cannot be expected to be successful in situations such as Iraq.
