Arrogant sidelining of UN

At the summit in Hillsborough both US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed that the UN would be given a vital role, though not overall responsibility, in shaping the future of the devastated country.

They have decreed that the UN would not run Iraq, but rather would co-operate by endeavouring to find Iraqis to serve on the interim authority which they deem will steer the country into the future.

Elevating themselves to the position of arbiters and relegating the UN almost to the role of an employment agency implies a breathtaking arrogance on the part of the Washington administration, which is the driving force behind this policy.

The arrangement to install their own nominees in

positions of power and influence in Iraq is now to be submitted for the imprimatur of the Security Council, which they ultimately ignored before invading the country.

The vested commercial interests which will benefit hugely from the multi-billion dollar reconstruction,

especially from an American perspective, have already been doled out the contracts even before the first shot was fired.

That, plus the fact that France was utterly against the invasion, as was Russia and Germany, would make it unlikely that Washington would tolerate any advice from that quarter concerning the role of the UN.

Whatever hope there was beginning to emerge that the political rift between America and old Europe might be resolved once the conflict was terminated, would appear to be dashed.

Mr Blair’s effort in at least getting Mr Bush to accept that the UN had a role to play, as announced in Belfast, obviously was acceded to purely in acknowledgement of Britain’s military support.

Now, as they anticipate that victory is on the horizon, the Americans are in no mood to relinquish their

dominant position in dictating what the future holds for Iraq. Despite the fact that yesterday cheering Iraqis were apparently greeting marines arriving in the Shia stronghold of Saddam City, the presumption that the war is over should be tempered with caution.

It was Mr Bush’s vow that Saddam Hussein would be toppled, dead or alive, and his regime rooted out.

Ultimately, he may not be able to deliver that promise, which would leave the outcome of a contrived war in a very unsatisfactory limbo.

CIA-inspired reports optimistically speculate that he is dead, a victim of Monday’s bombing, which blasted a Baghdad restaurant. Local sources are not quite as

sanguine about the demise of the dictator.

Television pictures of people kicking images of

Saddam Hussein and of looting are being interpreted that his grip on the city had been broken. What it really depicts is lawlessness engaged in by a people who find themselves in a political vacuum, nervous of the future.