Degenerating into chaos
The attack on the UN compound in Iraq signals that global terrorism now considers the United Nations and not just the United States to be a legitimate target, writes Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
The attack against the UN compound in Baghdad can be compared -- in importance, significance and impact -- to the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001, on New York and Washington. More, it marks a new stage in the confrontation with terrorism, which is no longer directed against America alone but against the international system as a whole. The clear message behind the attack is that the United Nations is seen as an appendix of US policies, not as a body enjoying a status of its own.
To put matters into their proper historical perspective, it is necessary to go back to where matters stood in the United Nations on the eve of the war on Iraq. At the time, relations between the great powers were at their most acrimonious, with the great powers, most of whom are members of the Security Council, divided into two camps. One camp proceeded from the premise that the world, under the leadership of the United States, was unipolar, and that, after the demise of the Soviet Union, no power on earth was capable of challenging it. The other camp, headed by France, Germany and Russia, proceeded from the premise that the world is multipolar and should remain so. For a time, it seemed the split between the two camps presented the most prominent confrontation in world affairs.
But the picture changed after the terrorist attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad, which was condemned by the whole international community with no exception. The dispute between the two groups of states faded into insignificance in the face of the new challenge to the international system.
The fact is that on the issue of Iraq the UN appeared unable to project the image of an independent party. Compared to the US pole, the UN was seen as weak and dislocated, especially after the US waged war against Iraq without UN approval. When the war was declared over, many of the great powers who had opposed the war now sought to mend their bridges with Washington, thereby tacitly acknowledging America's predominant status and their inability to challenge it.
Their conciliatory moves, hailed by some political analysts as an attempt to heal the rift and forge a global consensus against terrorism, were interpreted by many people, not least by those who shared the views of the terrorists themselves, as a sign of subservience by Security Council members, and hence by the United Nations as a whole, to Washington. In the eyes of the terrorist community, all the members of the international organisation bore an equal share of responsibility for this state of affairs.
Thus far from containing terrorism, the attempt to forge a global consensus only succeeded in inciting terrorists to step up and expand their operations, prompting one of the strongest supporters of the Bush/Blair line, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, to admit that "America and Britain proved unable to foresee the security vacuum" in Iraq. With neither the coalition forces nor the Security Council capable of filling the vacuum, chaos has become the most prominent feature of contemporary Iraq, leaving the way open to a rapprochement between various terrorist organisations. To talk of reconstruction in the present situation is ludicrous. On the contrary, the confrontation between the coalition forces and the coalition of terrorist organisations now active in Iraq threatens to bring about the deconstruction of the country.
The chaos in Iraq is working not only against any attempt at reconstruction, but also against the prospects of a real reconciliation between the great powers. After a short period of apparent closing of ranks, they once again fell out over the deteriorating situation in Iraq, with each party blaming some other party for allowing things to get out of hand. The legality of the war on Iraq is once again being called into question, not only because no weapons of mass destruction were found but also because of the embarrassing revelations of the enquiry into the alleged suicide of British arms expert David Kelly. Then too there is America's increasing preoccupation with the upcoming US presidential elections and the impact this is bound to have not only on Iraq, but on the Middle East situation as a whole.
Iraq is fast becoming the epicentre of terrorism on the global scale. An unknown organisation calling itself "The Army of Mohamed the Second" claimed responsibility for the attack on the UN compound in Baghdad. What Straw called the security vacuum has become a pole of attraction for terrorists from all over the world, regardless of their different ideologies and agendas. For what brings terrorist organisations together is stronger than what divides them. The same is not true for the parties fighting terrorism, whether at the global, regional or local level, who seem unable to rise above their differences and form a united front in the face of the terrorist challenge.
Meanwhile, the widespread destabilisation in Iraq exposes it to the very real risk of fragmentation. At a time the issue of a Palestinian state is on the cards, the Kurds, who have for long aspired to their own homeland, could well push for a state of their own. Any such state would have to be carved out of territory belonging to neighbouring countries, impinging on their sovereignty and integrity. Then there are the Shi'ites, numerically the largest group in Iraq, whose weight is bound to increase with the collapse of Iraq's central authority. So far, the Interim Governing Council has been unable to assert itself as a credible central authority. Nor is it likely to be recognised as such in any foreseeable future. After all, such authority as it does wield is by the grace of the occupying power, a fact not lost on the Iraqi people. The IGC enjoys no sovereign attributes and owes its continued existence to the good will of the American occupation authority.
A question that rose to the fore in the aftermath of the attack on the UN compound, and has become the source of much friction, is who should be held responsible for the security vacuum in Iraq, more specifically, for the security of UN personnel. Should it be an international force put together by the UN, which did not take part in the war and is not responsible for the occupation of Iraq? Or should it be the US, in its capacity as the occupying power?
Colin Powell has declared that the US will not cede any of its control over Iraq to the UN. And discussions so far have failed to offer the UN a greater role in deciding Iraq's political and economic future in face of Washington's determination to retain for itself military and political authority. Straw has asserted that the US alone is capable of undertaking effective military operations in Iraq. Still, he admits that Washington is studying the possibility of issuing a new UN resolution to convince a wider range of countries to send forces to Iraq.
But because of the lack of security, most countries would like to see their obligations towards military contributions in Iraq reduced, not increased. France, Germany, India and Pakistan refuse to contribute forces that would be operating under American or British command. France has called on the Security Council to "reassess in depth its strategy in Iraq". Germany has reiterated its refusal to send troops, while India's position is that it will not send troops as long as they are not under UN command. Japanese officials have signalled that sending Japanese troops to contribute in the reconstruction effort might be "postponed". Australia has began an official enquiry into growing accusations that information was manipulated to justify taking part in the war. But despite the Bush administration's singular lack of success in enlisting other countries to assist the occupation forces in Iraq, Rumsfeld has declared that the US is not planning to increase the number of its troops in Iraq. How then to respond to the need for more troops while the US itself is not willing to send reinforcements and most countries are reluctant to honour their present commitments?
The suicide bombing of an Israeli bus on 19 August has driven Israel to cut all relations with the Palestinian Authority, and the latter to sever all relations with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which claimed responsibility for the bombing. These recent developments have struck a devastating blow to the roadmap. Is peace on the Palestinian track conceivable at a time the situation in Iraq is spiralling out of control?
