“No!” to a U.N. Occupation of Iraq
By Jerry Gordon
(Edited version of remarks delivered October 9, 2003 at a forum
sponsored by the Northeast Ohio Coalition)
We’re meeting tonight at a time when peace activists from around
the country are organizing for the October 25 demonstrations whose demands are:
“End the Occupation of Iraq! Bring the Troops Home Now!”
I support these demands, but strongly disagree with an alternative
preferred by some in the antiwar movement: “U.S. Out! U.N. In!” Those who advocate
the latter slogan apparently have a concept of the U.N. as being benign,
altruistic, humanitarian, neutral, and even-handed. But this image is not
supported by the record.
In November 1990, the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution
authorizing military force against Iraq if it failed to comply with demands
made by the U.S. As a consequence, the U.N. fully supported the 42-day U.S.
bombing attacks against Iraq, along with the other military measures, which
killed over 100,000 Iraqis and destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure,
including its water supply system. The war left Iraq poisoned with radiation
from thousands of depleted uranium shells, which subsequently resulted in an
untold number of casualties.
In the aftermath of this 1991 war, the U.N. did three things.
First, it imposed a very intrusive inspections regime on Iraq designed to
eliminate weapons systems which that country depended upon to defend itself.
This made it far easier for the U.S. to conquer Iraq in this year’s war.
Second, the U.N Security Council passed a series of resolutions
directed against Iraq, including Resolution 1441. It was Iraq’s alleged
violation of these resolutions which the U.S. used as its pretext to justify
its brutal war of aggression against Iraq. (Of course, Israel has ignored many
U.N. resolutions, yet there has never been a proposal to impose sanctions
against it or to occupy it militarily. So much for the U.N. being even-handed.)
The third thing the U.N. did was to impose a harsh sanctions regime
against Iraq, which lasted for 13 years and exacerbated the terrible misery
being experienced by the Iraqi people as a result of the war. And make no
mistake, the sanctions were directed against the people, not against Sadam
Hussein, who, together with his clique, continued to live high off the hog.
So how do the Iraqi people feel about the U.N.? Here is what
Dennis Halliday, a former assistant secretary general and senior U.N. official
in Iraq, who resigned in 1999 rather than administer the U.N. blockade, said:
“In Iraq, the U.N. imposed sustained sanctions that probably killed up to one
million people. Children were dying of malnutrition and water-borne diseases.
The U.S. and U.K. bombed the infrastructure in 1991, destroying power, water,
and sewage systems against the Geneva Convention. It was a great crime against
Iraq.
“Thirteen years of sanctions made it impossible for Iraq to repair
the damage. That is why we have such tremendous resentment and anger against
the U.N. in Iraq. There is a sense that the U.N. humiliated the Iraqi people
and society. I would use the term genocide to define the use of sanctions
against Iraq. Several million Iraqis are suffering cancers because of the use
of depleted uranium shells. That’s an atrocity. Can you imagine the bitterness
from all this?” (Scotland Sunday Herald, 8/24/03)
On May 23 of this year, in the aftermath of the conventional phase
of the war, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1483. The vote was
unanimous, with only Syria out of the room. This resolution rubber stamped the
U.S./British occupation of Iraq. It legalized Washington’s military, political,
and economic control over Iraq’s wealth and explicitly granted control of
Iraq’s oil fields to the U.S./ British Authority.
The U.N. also welcomed to its meetings the representatives of the
U.S. handpicked Iraqi Governing Council, despite the fact that this body has no
legitimacy or credibility whatever.
Given all of the above, it is no wonder that the Iraqi people feel
so much hatred toward the U.N. The fact that the resistance forces in Iraq
carbombed U.N. facilities in August and September, killing 24 people and
causing 69 casualties is a manifestation of how deep that feeling is.
The demand “U.S. Out! U.N. In!” is indeed surreal. The U.S., after
all, is the world’s greatest military power. It invaded and conquered Iraq. The
U.S. previously spent $79 billion to finance the war and is now preparing to
spend an additional $87 billion to consolidate its control over Iraq. Hundreds
of U.S. troops have been killed in this war and nearly two thousand have been
wounded. The U.S. has nullified oil concessions discussed or negotiated by two
dozen oil companies and 16 countries with the Saddam Hussein regime (Wall
Street Journal 2/27/03). The U.S. government believes that to the victors
belong the spoils and the victors are the U.S, along with its junior partner
Great Britain. The U.S. does not want to share Iraq’s oil or the rest of its
wealth with any other country, nor does Washington wish to permit corporations
from other countries to profit from lucrative contracts for the reconstruction
of Iraq. Countries like France, Russia, and Germany, on the other hand, want in
on the spoils. They want their share of the loot. They have their own oil
contracts they want fulfilled. They want debts owed them by Iraq to be paid in
full.
Moreover, these other countries do not want the U.S. to establish
its hegemony in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, as they feel this would
threaten them. So there are bitter conflicts going on among the imperialist
nations. It was a defeat for the U.S. to have to go back to the U.N. and ask
for help in terms of troops and money to pay for the occupation. It was a
measure of the power of the resistance, which is now everywhere in Iraq, that
the U.S. felt compelled to make this approach to the U.N. But the U.S. doesn’t
want to see any other power in the country and certainly doesn’t want to
relinquish control. Can you imagine the U.S. attending a Security Council
meeting, where the U.S. has veto power, and instructing its delegate to vote in
favor of a resolution calling upon the U.S. to get out of Iraq and turning over
control of the country and its wealth to the U.N.?
Of course, there is an advantage to the U.S. to have the U.N. get
involved in Iraq in a strictly subsidiary role and that is spelled out in the
September 4, 2003 Wall Street Journal: “America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq
are clearly doing jobs of police work and guard duty that they weren’t trained
for and that leave them vulnerable to attack. With their discipline, firepower,
and mobility, they would be better deployed pursuing Saddam and his Ba’ath Party
remnants.”
In other words, U.S. military forces would be in a much better
position to exterminate the Iraqi resistance if “peacekeepers” from other
countries were present to take care of guard duty and other mundane tasks.
In talking about “U.S. Out! U.N. In!” we have to keep in mind that
the U.N. is just a framework entity and it has to depend on national
governments to provide troops for its “peacekeeping” operations. The U.N. would
encounter huge problems in attempting to be an occupying force. Rumsfeld set a
goal of other nations sending in 100,000 troops, but now acknowledges that the
U.S. will be lucky to get just 15,000, U.N. or no U.N. France, Germany, and
China have made clear they have no intention of sending in troops. Japan was
going to send troops, but they have put off the issue until next year. India
and Pakistan were candidates for troops but are demurring. Turkey has agreed to
send troops, having been bought off by the U.S. with an $8.5 billion loan
agreement. However, the Iraqi Governing Council opposes Turkey’s entry into the
country and the Kurds will certainly take issue with their presence.
The U.S. hoped to get $20 billion in contributions from other
countries, but now will be lucky to get $1 billion. Public opinion throughout
the world runs strongly against the occupation. Three-fourths of the French
oppose it, 80% of the Germans, 87% of the people of India, almost the entire
Turkish population, and so on. (New York Times 7/15/03)
On September 26–28, antiwar demonstrations were held in over 40
countries opposing the occupation of Iraq. Demonstrations have been held in
Britain and
The Wall Street Journal ran a large article in its October 1, 2003,
issue pointing out major problems that have plagued U.N. peacekeeping
operations. A related article, titled “Wealthy Countries in Effect Pay Poor
Ones to Handle U.N. Missions,” explains that the rich nations pay the poor
nations to do their dirty work around the world. The largest countries subsidize
the less developed ones to send in their troops because these “Third World”
countries need the money. “Still,” as the Wall Street Journal article points
out, “the developing world is growing a bit restive as its citizens become
informed of the risks involved in peacekeeping operations. ‘These people are
starting to have public opinion of their own,’ says Michel Kassa, a U.N.
humanitarian official. ‘Just like people in America and Europe, the public
don’t want to see their children come back in body bags.’”
In mobilizing earlier this year to prevent a U.S. war against
Iraq, forces throughout the world were united. We were all out in the
streets, over 10 million strong, on February 15 demanding “No U.S. War Against
Iraq! But advocates of “U.S. Out! U.N. In!” — despite good intentions — are now
raising a very divisive demand. While the antiwar movements in other countries
continue to fight to keep their troops out of Iraq, those who advocate a U.N.
occupation want them to send their troops into Iraq, which will only put them
in harm’s way. What then happens to solidarity and to the struggle to build an
international antiwar movement?
Finally, let’s consider the rationale that some peace activists
use in support of their call for U.N. occupation. They say that such an
occupation will help bring stability and security to Iraq.
In the first place, there is no assurance whatever that a U.N.
occupation, as opposed to a U.S. occupation, would make Iraq stable and secure.
Today there is chaos, turmoil, and anarchy in much of Iraq. How would a
substitute U.N. occupation change all of that? U.N. personnel are being pulled
out of Iraq because it is such a dangerous place for them. If they were to go
back in in large numbers, who says they would be well received?
The U.N., independent of the U.S., has no capability of bringing
in massive military forces to run Iraq. What would its function be? Would it
get into the business of rounding up, detaining, interrogating, torturing, and
killing resistance forces, as the U.S. is now doing?
Those of us who call for an end to the occupation of Iraq believe
that the Iraqi people have the right to decide their own destiny. We call for
respect of the right to self-determination and respect for other nations’
national sovereignty. Looking at the experience of the past half century,
starting with the U.N.’s war against Korea, which resulted in the death of
three million Koreans, the antiwar movement in this country has never called
for an occupation of one nation by another or by the U.N. We have always
supported the right of people to build their own societies as they see fit.
This is no time to go in the totally opposite direction.
Suppose the Iraqi people, supported by the world’s antiwar
movement, were successful in ending all forms of foreign occupation. Having
gone through all the wars, bloodshed, destruction, repression, poverty,
malnutrition, economic dislocation, and suffering during the past decades, how
can anyone automatically conclude that upon the departure of foreign forces the
Iraqis will immediately turn upon and slaughter each other? No one disputes
that there are sharp class, ethnic, religious, and tribal differences among the
Iraqi people, which could result in strife and conflict, but we don’t know for
sure what will happen. What we do know is that the Iraqis are a resourceful,
intelligent, educated, cultured and skilled people, who may find ways to join
together to plan their country’s future and to rebuild their society. When the
Ayatollah Hakim, a prominent religious Shiite leader, was killed on August 29,
his brother, a member of the Governing Council, told a large crowd, “We will
follow Hakim’s ideas! Unity in Iraq between Shiite, Sunnis, and Kurds; a
democratic country without dictatorship; and a country not under occupation.”
That also could be a theme for Iraqis in the future.
Iraq will, of course, need considerable help in putting its
society back together. But it can negotiate material aid from other countries
and even the U.N. with no strings attached and without having its territory
occupied by foreign troops.
Our priority in this country must be to demand that Washington end
the occupation of Iraq. We must oppose a substitute multi-lateral occupation in
its place. Let the Iraqis establish a government of their own choosing, not one
handpicked by the U.S. or the U.N.
Iraq for the Iraqis! End the Occupation! Bring the Troops Home
Now! Money for Jobs, Education and Health Care, Not for War! U.S. Out of the
Middle East!