Yesterday, EU leaders called for the UN to have “a central” role in rebuilding Iraq; in Belfast a few days ago, George Bush and Tony Blair talked about the UN having “a vital” role.
Clearly the debate about the UN’s role is going to be bitterly contested. In the one corner France, Russia and plenty of others, including UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, insist that only the UN can give legitimacy to a postwar government in Iraq. In the other is Washington, insisting that it will run the show and that the UN’s role will be subordinate — simply helping with reconstruction. Between them, Tony Blair and others suggest that the UN and the US cooperate in rebuilding Iraq.
The fact is that the UN is as much an outsider to Iraqis as the US, and the only legitimacy that counts can come from the Iraqis themselves. If a transitional government in Baghdad is seen to be accepted by the Iraqis, despite having come into being as a result of US action, then it will be as legitimate as anything the UN could organize. In any event, all the signs are that Iraqis do not want a UN-run administration as in Kosovo. They want an interim government that is an all-Iraqi affair — and they want it now, not in several months’ time, which is how long the UN will take to get its act on the road. What they want from the UN is practical help in reconstruction. They may be suspicious of US intentions, but it seems that they would prefer that the Americans remained for the time being to provide law and order while the country gets back on its feet, and then go.
But the UN will have a role to play, whether the US likes it or not, because until the UN embargo is lifted, Iraqi oil cannot be sold openly on the international market to pay for the country’s reconstruction. If the US tries to sell the oil, they would find themselves facing court action from countries owed money by Iraq. The Russians and French would jump at the chance. That means a compromise between the two positions, which in effect means Tony Blair’s option — the UN and US cooperating.
For all the talk about legality and morality, or reality and practicality, the debate about the UN’s role seems to be motivated as much by money. US companies are set to make megabucks out of it. Iraq will pay, through its oil wealth, while Washington sits back and hands out the contracts — contracts it has already said should go to itself and the UK for having “liberated” the country. This alone justifies a UN role in Iraq. It is unacceptable that the US should use its military power to make money for US companies.
But the French and Russians are equally mercenary. Their refusal to cancel Iraqi debts worth about $8 billion each shows their real motive in opposing the war and now in insisting that the UN be involved. It is all about money. They fear that they will be barred from future contracts in a country where they were joint leading players in the past. The excuse for not canceling the debts — they said that could only be negotiated with an elected government — was not convincing. All they needed to say was that the debt was cancelled. There would have been no need for negotiations with anyone. Had they done that, it would have given them an insurmountable moral high ground.
They want contracts; the US intends to keep them for itself. The scavengers are snapping at each other.
