UNI: UN in Iraq

While Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) remains a strong negative — albeit over-hyped — actor in the country, maybe the UN will be a positive one.

A united force in Mesopotamia?
About time the Security Council took action to widen the United Nation's reach in Iraq...

With a show of 15 hands, resolution 1770 was adopted unanimously at the UN Security Council, paving the way for a wider, political role for the UN in Iraq and a bigger presence inside the war-torn country.

The number of staff will only increase from 65 to 95 - a small but very symbolic step for the world body, which withdrew most of its 600 staff from Baghdad four years ago, in the wake of a massive attack on its headquarters.

Under the new resolution, sponsored by the US and the UK, the UN will now be authorised to help the Iraqi government to promote national reconciliation and regional dialogue on issues such as border security, energy and refugees.

It will also help settle disputes over internal boundaries - all tasks in which the US is seen to have failed so far in Iraq.

The Iraqis have welcomed the resolution, but said they realise the onus was on them as well.

This is relatively good news for Iraq. Borders, energy, and refugees are some of the biggest issues facing Iraq. They're also complex and often multinational issues that need to be dealt with on an international level, not by an incompetent occupier seen as imperialistic and out to steal Iraq's oil wealth (I think that notion was disproven long ago). Iraq's borders is a matter of security; foreign extremists and terrorists are seeping in through the borders daily to worsen the situation in Iraq. Energy is a political and economic issue. Iraq has many refugees; more and more flee the country every day and they are becoming a major focus for humanitarian groups.

Terrorists crossing Iraq's borders into the country, a lack of economic progress and energy insecurity, and the instability in Iraq and bordering nations caused by refugees (which also breeds extremism) all combine to make a very volatile and dangerous Iraq. All three fuel Iraq's civil war and each has its own area: security, economy/politics, and humanitarian. There is no magic fix, but the UN will certainly be able to work those issues out better than America. In addition, nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran launching proxy wars in Iraq and supporting terrorist movements may be dealt with better by the international diplomatic community — in conjunction with involved parties — than by the US.

Some questions about this symbolic move:

Will it increase international support and legitimacy for the US-led occupation?

Will the US really do its job in protecting the UN staff; will fighters target it or let it be to help their own political image?

Is it really as important symbolically as it seems?

Will it pave the way for more diplomatic progress on war-torn Iraq?

Will there be more expansion?

Are peacekeeping operations coming soon? Whose backing would they have? Is there enough support, money, and troops for an effective peacekeeping force? (The best case for the above question would be if peoples who Iraqis feel little animosity towards took a large role in the operations. Muslim-majority states like Indonesia were apparantly open to the option a while back, but since the situation on the ground in Iraq, especially Baghdad, has worsened, and America remains defiant of its occupation, that option is shrinking.)

Will Sudan weasel out of this one?

Late last month, the United Nations Security Council finally agreed to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur, in Sudan. In the western region of Darfur, what some (including me) call genocide has raged on since 2003, resulting in the deaths of a minimum of 200,000 people and the rape of many more. Millions have exited Darfur, seeking refuge, and the conflict appears to have spread to neighboring Chad, destabilizing the region.

HELP!
Khartoum has remained defiant, as I've blogged about, and the current AU force there is unable to do its job because of the government's undermining tactics. Although a hybrid UN-AU force was agreed upon earlier this year Sudan's government has been doing everything possible to prevent it from helping its people — pressure from China was essential for the plan to go through.

Compromised operation
Resolution 1769 was passed unanimously. It has been called weak by some, probably because the need to placate China, which has a permanent seat on the Security Council and has ties to the Sudanese government (Sudan has what everyone wants: oil). However, it's better to have some than none and sometimes, even on humanitarian issues, concessions are needed to see the plan through. Diplomacy's all about compromise; China's vote was needed for this resolution and the people of Darfur have waited and suffered long enough.

BBC News:

The mandate for the 26,000-strong force was watered down to appease critics and it will only be able to protect civilians deemed to be under threat.

The new UN-AU mission head welcomed the move but urged a political solution "as there needs to be a peace to keep".

The warring factions in the four-year conflict are due to meet on Friday.
...
The mission, to be known as Unamid - the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur - is expected to cost up to $2bn (£1.1bn) a year and will be world's largest peacekeeping force.
...
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described the mission as "historic and unprecedented".
...
The new force will not have the right to disarm the militias and it does not have the powers to pursue and arrest suspected war criminals indicted by the International Criminal Court.

Rebels
In a recent update:

Most of Darfur's rebel groups have agreed on a common position and want "final" talks with Sudan's government within two or three months.

A political solution is needed, though, and the Darfur groups rebelling against the government know that. The rebel groups often shift positions following agreements so this is by no means a final accord.

Resolution lacking resolve (?)
This new international force will be able to actually use force and defend local citizens and the foreign workers there from state-backed rebels and even state forces themselves (a key reason humanitarian work there has been stinted). It will number around 26,000 and, as stated above, consists of United Nations and African Union peacekeepers. The first of the troops should arrive in October. Everyone but the leaders in Khartoum have been pushing for a peacekeeping force in Darfur — the civilians, the aid agencies, the rebels, foreign governments. The Darfur rebel groups seem to be content with the resolution.

Sanctions — which were suggested by the Bush administration a while back (all talk, no action) — have been taken off the table with this resolution. So what leverage does the peacekeeping force have over Khartoum? Next to none, it seems.

The fact that it is fueling the genocide aside, isn't it reprehensible that the Sudan is keeping even the most basic and essential aid from reaching its own citizens? In the end of all this, who will get off scot-free, and who will have to face justice?

Will Iran and Syria finally divorce?

Just as Iran has its nuclear issue causing the international community to stand on edge, its pal Syria has the Rafik Hariri assassination case, which has also kept news-watchers like myself on the edge of our seats. How long will Iran and Syria's little friendship last? Lebanon and isolation by (in Syria's case) and dislike of (in Iran's case) the United States are two of the common threads. As a result both have been known to harbor or support extremists. Contrary to what the White House says every day, there is no pure evil, no clear enemy, in world politics, or most other things.

But neither Damascus or Tehran should take their alliance for granted.

On Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council voted to establish a special court to try those who participated in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria is the prime suspect in the crime. Its allies blocked passage of the tribunal through the Lebanese Parliament, which is why the Security Council decided to approve it unilaterally. However, an increasingly pertinent question, albeit one only now beginning to provoke interest, is what the tribunal might mean for Syrian-Iranian collaboration in Lebanon.
...
Lebanon, thanks to a series of Security Council resolutions designed to bolster its independence from Syria, investigate the Hariri murder, and reinforce a U.N. peacekeeping force along the border with Israel, finds itself under de facto international trusteeship. For Hezbollah to find the Americans at their doorstep again must have been galling. The United States, France, the United Nations, and leading Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, have attempted to firm up the country against two parallel developments: Syria's persistent efforts to destabilize Lebanon, mainly to undermine a Hariri tribunal that threatens the Syrian regime; and Iran's desire to use Lebanon as an outpost in the Levant from where it might derail American, Israeli, or Western initiatives with which it is unhappy; but also from where it can deter, through Hezbollah, an Israeli or U.S. strike against its nuclear facilities.

But will Syria and Iran remain on the same wavelength in Lebanon now that the regime of President Bashar Assad is more vulnerable than ever? The two countries have cooperated closely, and according to a diplomat who travels to Damascus, Iran is manning listening posts in Syrian territory from which even Russian experts are denied entry. The notion of a sudden Iranian-Syrian split seems, for the moment, naive.

However, with a green light for the Hariri tribunal, things may become more complicated.

So the Mid-East chapter of the "axis of evil" might soon be no more. But don't count on it happening anytime soon.