Everyone agrees that Iraq's governmental and civilian infrastructure will need to be rebuilt after the war, and that the United States should pay its fair share. After all, it was the United States military that dropped the vast majority of the ordnance on the country. Not only do we have a moral obligation to rebuild Iraq, but regional and international security concerns dictate it.
| |  |
| | | Amy A. Langham is executive director of the World Federalist Association of Pittsburgh (amy@aol.com). | |
| | |
Simply put, the creation of a politically stable, disarmed and well-fed Iraq where human rights are respected and democracy is practiced will make for a safer world inasmuch as it will presumably counteract the forces that feed fanaticism and contribute to terrorism. Rebuilding Iraq, however, is no small task. It is an enormous undertaking that will require vast expertise, resources and experience.
The debate has just begun concerning who will play a leading role in reconstructing Iraq. The Bush administration appears to support the United States taking the leading role, with much of the work being done by the Department of Defense as opposed to the Department of State. Such a proposal poses significant problems.
First, it will do nothing to change the impression of many skeptics that this is to be a military project as opposed to a diplomatic or civilian project. This will add fuel to the fire of those who believe that this whole operation is nothing less than the latest incarnation of U.S. economic imperialism supported by the strong arm of the U.S. military. As misguided as this view may be, it is a view that might prevent the United States from achieving its ultimate strategic and humanitarian goals.
Second, it is a proposal that unwisely diminishes the role of United Nations. Though it is not popular to be a U.N. sympathizer these days, there are many good reasons why we should look to the United Nations for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Allowing the United Nations to take a leading role in a postwar Iraq could solve a good number of the diplomatic problems that the United States faces.
First, it will help the United States mend fences with some important allies that feel that they were strong-armed by the United States in the months and days leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
Second, it can help defray the enormous costs associated with such a task. If America insists on going it alone, we could end up shouldering the entire cost. Countries will be more likely to contribute to reconstruction efforts if it is an international process over which they have input.
Third, it will help to alleviate fears of an American rogue superpower. We must remember that the version of the war we are watching on TV is immeasurably different from the version being aired overseas.
The U.S. media are presenting a sanitized view of the war and the more graphic depictions seen in the international media have only contributed to fears of unrestrained American military pre-emption. As the global protests and a flurry of polls suggest, there is a critical mass of citizens who view this war as illegal under international law and therefore illegitimate. The war is at best seen as unnecessary and at worst an aggressive proxy war fought on the behalf of Western oil interests. Going through the United Nations will help to counter this impression.
Finally, no other institution has the legitimacy, credibility, experience and administrative structures to take on this enormous and delicate task. Since its founding, the United Nations has been repeatedly called upon to clean up the messes made by its member-states. Along the way, the United Nations learned some hard lessons. As there was no textbook to follow, mistakes in peacekeeping and nation-building have been made.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was recently quoted saying the United Nations' role in Kosovo is not the model of nation building the administration is seeking. It is telling that Wolfowitz did not mention the United Nations' nation-building efforts in East Timor, its most recent and greatest success.
Moreover, the United Nations already has experience delivering aid in Iraq. The World Food Program and UNICEF, among other U.N. agencies and programs, have been at work in Iraq for years. They have already established distribution networks, trained Iraqi staff and developed trusted links to non-U.N. relief agencies. By cutting the United Nations out of the process, the United States risks losing precious time by having to reinvent the wheel.
An ideological aversion to effective international institutions and instruments is what is really at work here. The reason the administration does not want to allow the United Nations to take a leading role in Iraq is that it fears the United Nations will succeed.
E-mail this story 
