UN the only way out of the bloody mess created by Bush and Blair

IN the months leading up to last year’s war in Iraq, it looked initially as if the Bush administration was prepared to follow a UN course.

President George W Bush sought and obtained a first UN resolution.

In or about mid-March 2003 it became clear that a second resolution, on the United States' terms, would not be forthcoming from the Security Council. However, convinced they knew best and certain that the UN (and France in particular) were being wimps, the Bush administration decided to proceed to invade Iraq anyway.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair threw his country's forces in behind that decision.

As a result of that decision the United States is now paying a considerable price not only in terms of international prestige, but also in soldiers' lives.

It is possible that George Bush may pay the ultimate political price for the folly of this decision in next November's presidential election. More importantly, as a result of Bush and Blair's actions last March, our world is now a more dangerous place.

This week it is worth restating some of the reasons why the Bush and Blair decision to go to war in Iraq, without the United Nations, was wrong.

Most of us who opposed the war did so not out of any left-wing or anti-American sentiment, but because of a humanitarian reluctance to engage in the ultimate form of political conflict in circumstances where there was a strong basis for suspicion about the motives of the Bush administration.

There were real reasons also to be sceptical of the intelligence information and the political spin upon which the case for war was being made.

Above all else, most of the moderate voices opposing a war in Iraq without UN sanction did not believe that Saddam Hussein presented an immediate, short-term or even medium-term threat to world security.

Saddam's regime was one of terror for his own people and, of course, Iraq is better now that he is gone. However, in this regard Saddam was no different from dozens of other despots in our world today.

Saddam was singled out for US-led military attention because it was claimed he had (and, it was implied, was in a position to use) weapons of mass destruction. It is clear that these weapons of mass destruction, or even capabilities to develop such weapons, did not exist in Iraq.

It is also clear that much of the intelligence information published by the British government to persuade its public to support the war, and large chunks of the case advanced by Colin Powell in his presentation to the Security Council, were materially wrong.

A second reason why moderate voices were against the war was the need to oppose the doctrine of 'preventative first strike' which has taken hold in the Bush administration.

In proposing to attack Iraq without any real basis and without UN authorisation, the Bush administration was implementing, for the first time, this dangerous international policy. On the premise that Saddam posed a risk to world security the Bush administration argued that the United States must strike first. This doctrine is dangerous.

There will be no real international security if at any time those in government in the United States, without any international sanction, see themselves as entitled to invade or attack any country or regime which they perceive as a potential threat.

The third significant reason for the opposition of moderate voices was the warning from most Middle East and Arab specialists that the Pandora's box opened in Iraq by such a war would create an even more threatening situation for the west and for the United States in particular.

These experts warned that despite its brutality or perhaps because of it Saddam's regime kept a lid on a powder keg of sectarian conflict and power struggles within Iraq.

While these risks did not justify leaving Saddam in power, they did require that particular care be taken in the post-Saddam scenario. Nearly all of these experts argued that if there was to be enforced regime-change in Iraq, it would be better if this was achieved by the UN rather than the US because the UN would have a greater prospect of acceptability and success.

Most of these experts warned that even a brief occupation fronted by the US would not only ferment considerable local opposition but would also, in the post-Saddam power vacuum, turn Iraq into a gathering point for anti-American terrorist forces.

Sadly, this unstable scenario has come to pass.

Iraq has just had its bloodiest week in almost a year. After initial reverses, the coalition forces appear, for the time being at least, to have reasserted control.

However, if the instability persists, then the risk of both Shia and Sunni uprisings or sectarian civil war remains real.

IN addition to the siege of Fallujah, there is now a growing hostage crisis in Iraq. So dangerous is the situation that the French, Portuguese and Russian governments are ordering their civilians to leave the country immediately.

Not surprisingly, there is a growing chorus around the world for the United Nations to play the lead role in Iraq from here on. It was almost inevitable that the UN would be called in to tidy up the mess left by Bush and Blair's war.

Two of the voices now calling for the UN to take the lead are particularly significant. In the United States itself, Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry called in a Washington Post article on Tuesday for a 'de-Americanisation' of the transfer of power to Iraqis between now and the end of June target date.

He argued that the UN, not the US, should be the prime civilian partner in establishing democracy, restoring infrastructure and services and ultimately in handing over responsibility for security.

On Sunday, the British opposition leader, Michael Howard, made a similar call for a greater role for the UN.

These voices are significant because a year ago both the Democrats in the US and the Conservatives in Britain supported their respective countries' involvement in the Iraq war, even when no second UN resolution was forthcoming.

In his press conference on Tuesday, President Bush also talked about seeking another Security Council resolution, but he is looking for something which makes it easier for other countries to commit the additional troops now required to contain the security situation in Iraq.

The kind of resolution Bush seeks will not be adequate. What is needed is for all western forces in Iraq to be put under UN auspices. The UN must also take the lead role in developing alternative indigenous government in Iraq. Then a date for the complete withdrawal of western forces needs to be set. It would have been better if the UN had been heeded a year ago. It is even more important that it plays the leading role now.