Of weasels and the willing
By Peter Münch, Süddeutsche Zeitung Munich 222 pg 4 - Friday 26.09.2003
Occupation is a harsh word - it tastes of arbitrariness and injustice, lust for power shines through. Occupation appears thus as a questionable and in practical terms an enormously difficult undertaking. The clichés about the post-war phases, which are now de jour, sound so much better: state building, peace missions or a rapid re-establishment of the sovereignty of the defeated country. The controversy over the new resolution regarding the future Iraq swings between these two extremes, on surface between the good and the evil.
In essence the USA are insisting on their status of an occupier, while asking for international assistance. The opponents, above all French and German, demand responsibility for the United Nations and a speedy return of power to an Iraqi government. Because nobody loves an evil occupier, and because, from experience and rightfully so, nobody trusts Iraq plans of the US government, the position of the old war opponents makes a logical, a nearly compelling impression. It has the moral on its side, it is covered by international law - still, such a resolution would mean a check, ready to bounce.
The position of those calling for the UN and the Iraqi people, is not always honest. Because the two demands, as interrelated as they are, can hardly be realized. First the role of United Nations: Naturally their patronage over the entire Iraq project is desirable. In the sense of a world order, that blocks hegemonial intentions and misuse of power, it is even urgently needed. To bring this about, however, requires a readiness for a substantial commitment. The Balkan offers examples of it: In Bosnia the high representative Paddy Ashdown nearly eight years after the end of war still keeps his hand over the political process; Kosovo, four years after the end of the war, has yet to move beyond the status of an international protectorate.
This, however, cannot be what the proponents the UN takeover of Iraq have on their minds. Because their demands ring hollow. The Germans want to invite a few policemen for training, the French duck out of the way, and the European Union struggles over the question, whether it should give 200 million euro for the reconstruction of Iraq. Compared with the 87 billion dollar, that the president George Bush requested in congress for just the next year, this is no more than just petty cash for the project. Besides, the United Nations do not look exactly liked thirsting for Iraq. After two attacks on their headquarters in Baghdad the operational readiness level was down-sized from 600 to 50 international representatives. Now it is to be reduced even further. The UN trade union even demands, because of the inherent dangers, that the Iraq employment is to be scrubbed.
The UN thus are weak, and the will to strengthen them is in spite all the glowing exhortations nowhere to be seen . The gap between the wishes and the reality is thus to be bridged by another piece out of the nation building construction box: in six to nine months, the French president Jacques Chirac demands, the power is to lie in the hands of an Iraqi government. This way the UN, whose employment would cost dearly, would be out of the loop again. The Iraqis would allegedly get their say, and the full sovereignty would be restored.
This, however, is not a plan, it is an instrumentalization of the Iraqi people, an emergency fix, a result of aversion towards responsibility. Because what kind of a government this could be? At the moment in Baghdad they have not even started yet the preliminary steps toward a new constitution, the civil society after decades of the dictatorship is nonexistent, elections are nowhere on the horizon. The project of the democratization, which is unique to the Arab world, needs time for success. Excessive hurry would lead to the opposite: persons from the present government, in some aspects questionable, legitimized today by nothing, controllable in the future only with difficulty, would come into positions of power.
That certainly does not mean that Americans are to keep their free pass for their occupation regime. The point is just not to raise any counterproductive demands and drive the devil out with Beelzebub. Only the USA are in the position to assure safety in Iraq. They also have to carry the main load and the responsibility in the reconstruction. It is quite legitimate to let the US government pay education fees for a misdirected policy. But it is wrong as a settlement for old debts to want to push them as fast as possible out of Iraq, because this would lead into the chaos.
Both the military as well as the civilian process must run under the roof of the United Nations - under the leadership of Americans. In the long run this is also in the interest of USA, because that's the only way to get rid of the blemish of an occupier and to assure the project can succeed. It is, however, also in the interest of the states, that demand a UN mission, that they do their part militarily and financially to assure its success.
transl DJ |
