The Lone Ranger in Iraq

Since the diplomatic meltdown at the U.N. Security Council in March, the Bush administration has given the United Nations only a minimal role in the reconstruction of Iraq. This unmitigated arrogance may prove to be a disaster. America must shed its Lone Ranger approach. It has to admit that it cannot handle the situation in Iraq alone, with its trusty sidekicks, the British and the Poles. It also has to stop treating the United Nations with disdain.\nPresident Bush's somewhat belated and grudging willingness to bring the global body back into play still might not heal the divisions produced by the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. The General Assembly anxiously awaited some positive sign of an American concession to realism. It expected Bush to at least provide an outline of a plan to share not just the burden but the power of postwar occupation in Iraq. Bush gave them nothing. In some ways, he gave the United Nations less than nothing.\nIn his speech, Bush cited only three areas in which the role of the United Nations (or any other nation) should be expanded: writing an Iraqi constitution, training a new corps of civil servants and supervising elections. He won no friends, but then he asked for none. He changed no attitudes, but he didn't really try.\n"Mr. Bush should think beyond the strategic interests of the United States. All he is bothered about is the $87 billion Americans are spending in Iraq," said Gina Lambright, a professor in comparative politics at IU.\nThe pro-Dubya camp is saying that the president didn't need to swallow his pride in his U.N. speech because other nations, including France, Germany, India, Turkey, Russia, and Pakistan among others, had already turned down his plea. \nThey are saying: Why should we give other countries a chance to share power? If it were up to them, Saddam would still be in power. Point taken. But one must understand the difference between pre-war and post-war Iraq. Yesterday, the U.S. could have done without many to topple Saddam. Today they can do better with at least a baker's dozen to rebuild Iraq.\nThe United Nations and the nations that opposed the war, on the other hand, must bury past grievances and get over their differences on U.S. involvement in Iraq. The Iraqi people need water, electricity and work; not the lack of concern of countries like France and Germany.\nPresident Bush's recent moves, though belated, to resolve differences with the United Nations may still come in handy.\n"The president has laid an egg at the U.N.," said Fred Kaplan in his military analysis for the online journal Slate. If passed by the Security Council, the resolution to expand the U.N.'s role in Iraq should encourage more countries to share the burden now overwhelmingly borne by U.S. troops and taxpayers.\n In the meantime, the United Nations is already hard at work assessing a $35 billion package for the region after Bush's speech.\n President Bush must realize that the guiding issue is not whether the United States or the United Nations should run Iraq, but what's in the best interests of the Iraqis. The Iraqi Governing Council and a new set of Iraqi ministers appointed to run government departments are already in place. What really pinches is the continuing violence against Americans, the United Nations and Iraqis who cooperate with allied forces. This can be checked with the neutral presence of U.N. forces. \nThe United Nations, too, has ample opportunity now to project itself as more than just a "weapons inspector" in the case of Iraq. In the meantime, the onus remains on the Lone Ranger to decide how willing he is to share political control and decision-making with the United Nations in Iraq.