|
|
|
Call for Movement to Keep UN Out of Iraq Proposal by James Paterson
[jimjamtwo@yahoo.com ] of Australia That the international community’s moral obligation to deter the US from attempting further wars precedes any obligations it may have to relieve the sufferings that the Iraqi people are enduring under US/UK occupation. Phyllis Bennis (writing in Foreign Policy in Focus): ‘The Bush administration's recent draft United Nations resolution proposing a new role for the UN in Iraq would be a welcome step if it were done to help improve the lives of Iraqi citizens. But the reassessment is not a reflection of any concern regarding the illegality of the occupation, the lack of legitimacy of the US presence in Iraq, or the impact on Iraqis of Washington's abject failure to provide for even the minimal humanitarian needs of the population. Instead, it reflects a growing concern regarding what the New York Times called the "high cost of occupation" for the US in Iraq - costs both in US soldiers' lives and in dollars.’ http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/2003/0309iraqun.html Since the US is not apologizing for its misadventure, and may even be planning further wars of aggression (e.g., against Iran), the UN can not afford to do anything that will send the Bush administration the wrong message, i.e., that it can be relied upon to clean up the messes the US makes. *Proposition Two The UN must stay out of Iraq because the Iraqi debacle is an important precondition for a Bush defeat in 2004. The cost to the US of its occupation of Iraq is currently estimated at around a billion dollars a week - and the money is not going to come from the sale of Iraqi oil. US soldiers are dying every day. The situation is deteriorating so rapidly that it is probably sufficient to guarantee a Bush defeat in the next presidential election. Non-Americans can’t vote in that election, but we can do our best to ensure that Bush is left enough rope to hang himself. Simon Tisdall (writing in the Guardian): ‘The political cost to Bush and the Republican party is ... rising. As America moves into its election season, polls show steadily falling support for the administration's Iraq policy coupled with worries about Bush's economic management. That is a potentially knock-out combination, as the Democrats are belatedly realising.’ Suggestions for action 1. Write to the following countries to discourage them from comitting troops to Iraq. (According to the BBC News, these countries are all willing to consider sending troops, if there is a UN mandate.) Turkey turkey@un.int Pakistan Pakistan@un.int India india@un.int France france-presse@un.int Russia rusun@un.int Indonesia ptri@indonesiamission-ny.org Bangladesh bangladesh@un.int 2. Write to the following members of the UN Security Council to discourage them from supporting the US draft resolution: bulgaria@un.int emb.ismael.martins@angolamissionun.org Suggested draft letter 1: I am writing to urge your country to vote against the US draft resolution for UN involvement in Iraq. The UN should not become involved in this debacle at all. The US (and its allies) wanted this war, and so should bear both the military and financial costs. Why should other countries pay for US disasters with the deaths of their soldiers and their money? Since the US is not apologizing for its ill-advised invasion of Iraq, and may even be planning further wars of aggression in the region (e.g., against Iran), the UN can not afford to do anything that will send the Bush administration the wrong message, i.e., that it can be relied upon to clean up the messes the US makes. To help out now is only to encourage Washington to draw the conclusion that it can undertake whatever follies it wants and the UN will go into action as its cleanup brigade. It would give Washington carte blanche to wage perpetual war. Furthermore, UN acceptance of a role in Iraq would allow Bush to evade responsibility for the debacle in time for the 2004 presidential election. Henceforth, everything that goes wrong in Iraq will be represented by the administration as the UN’s fault. It is entirely inappropriate for the UN to provide Bush with the cover he needs to keep his destructive regime in power. The UN has a moral responsibility to ensure that a new president committed to internationalist principles emerges in 2004. Without a new administration in Washington, it is most unlikely that anything will be done to deal with the world’s most pressing problems, including global warming and the AIDS crisis. Can the UN really afford to help the Bush administration save itself at a moment like this in history? Suggested draft letter 2: I urge your country to reject Washington's proposal for the UN to share the financial burden and personal risks of occupation while denying it control of the occupation itself. If the UN goes into Iraq on Bush's terms, it sends Washington two wrong messages. First, that the UN retrospectively sanctions the war, and second, that any time the US makes a mess, the UN can be relied upon to help clean it up. If the UN agrees to help the US clean up its mess in Iraq, we can be sure that many more ill-conceived acts of aggression will emanate from the Bush administration. After all, UN participation dramatically reduces the consequences to the US of its acts. Can the world community allow the UN to act in a way that would only incite the US to undertake further campaigns, such as invasions of Syria and Iran? The only way to stop this descent into perpetual war is to take a strong stance against UN involvement in Iraq. 3. Write to the chief warmongers (the US, the UK, Australia and Spain) to tell them that you don’t believe the UN should help out and why: UN contact lists (created April 2003) available at: http://www.wordsurge.com/body_un_contacts.html |