THE UN OPTION

(PART OF) THE SUNNI RESISTANCE

DEMANDS UN REPLACEMENT FORCE

DECEMBER 2005 THE SUNNI RESISTANCE SPEAKS

INTRODUCTION

The anti-war movement is united in opposing the US/UK occupation of Iraq. But it has been divided over quite how or when to end that occupation. Now there is an opportunity for at least part of the movement to unite around a core set of demands that may have the support of the public in both Iraq and the occupier nations.

Since September 2003, Justice Not Vengeance has been arguing that unconditional, immediate withdrawal carried with it a real risk of intensifying the suffering of the Iraqi people, and that therefore rapid withdrawal of US-led forces should be accompanied by the introduction of an independent international security force that could lessen the risks of civil war and uncontrollable violence.

We have based our argument in part on a reading of Iraqi opinion polls (strengthened recently by discussions with professionals who have carried out in-depth opinion research), in part on our analysis of the situation in Iraq, and in part on the expressed views of elements in the Iraqi resistance (see below).

(PART OF) THE RESISTANCE SPEAKS

In the Guardian two days ago (15 December 2005), for the first time that we are aware of, the UN option in the exact form that we have been proposing it has been put forward as a demand by a political force associated with the main part of the Sunni resistance.

Harith al-Dari, Secretary General of the Association of Muslim Scholars, has demanded

the withdrawal of US-led forces,
their replacement by UN forces,
the formation of a temporary UN administration with an interim Iraqi government,
and genuinely independent elections held under UN auspices

(full quote below, full article at the end of this posting or here).

This is exactly what JNV has been calling for since September 2005 (see below).

THE ASSOCIATION OF MUSLIM CLERICS

The Association (also known as the Muslim Clerics Association) has been described as ‘by far the most important hardline Sunni Arab political organization’, which claims to speak for those engaged in anti-occupation struggle, and whose ‘broad ideology shows that it tries to represent a broad spectrum of insurgent groups.’

The authoritative Middle East Report notes that, ‘The exact nature of the Association’s relations with the insurgency is unclear, and it is unknown which groups it represents, but its influence is apparent from the role it played in securing the release of foreign hostages in 2004. The choice of so many guerrillas to lay down their arms for the October 15 referendum is also partly attributable to the Association’s call, though some “former regime elements” also called for quiet so that people could vote no in peace.’ (Roel Meijer, ‘The Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq’, Middle East Report, Winter 2005)

In other words, a political grouping representing a broad spectrum of the Iraqi Sunni resistance (not, of course, the minority al-Qaeda fanatics) is publicly demanding UN replacement of US forces as the preferred solution for their country.

The indications are that this may well be acceptable to the Shia majority also (see Juan Cole, below).

It is also highly likely that this option would command majority support in the main occupier nations Britain and the United States – though the UN option has never been posed in any national opinion poll that we are aware of.

There is, therefore, a real opportunity now for the international anti-war movement to unite around support for the Association of Muslim Scholars’ exit strategy.

Individuals and groups inside and outside Iraq who wish to be part of this new international grouping are invited to contact Justice Not Vengeance.

*****

SUNNI RESISTANCE VOICES 1

In December 2003, US journalist Robert Collier interviewed ‘dozens of Shiite leaders, Sunni clerics, and Baathists of all levels in Baghdad and the nearby cities of Falluja, Samarra, and Sadr City’:

‘I asked them two simple questions: What would stop the rebellion? And what would persuade them and the guerrillas to give some breathing space to a new foreign coalition?’ Collier found differences, but also ‘commonalities’ that suggested ‘a transition plan that could stop most of the guerrilla attacks, allow the introduction of UN civilian and military forces, and facilitate the withdrawal of large numbers of American troops.’

Among the commonalities was this: ‘Give the United Nations overall control of the Iraqi transition process, even though not all attacks will cease. Baathists insist that the United Nations is not the enemy, despite the terrorist bombings in August and September that caused it to flee the country.'

' “If the United Nations is acting by itself, and not just on behalf of the Americans, it will be welcomed,” said a former high-ranking Foreign Ministry official. “When I see a blue helmet, it’s totally different from seeing an American helmet, even psychologically. If the United Nations took over from the Americans, it would create a new atmosphere.”

***

SUNNI RESISTANCE VOICES 2

Harith al-Dari, Secretary General of the Association of Muslim Scholars, also translated as the ‘Muslim Clerical Association’ of Iraq:

‘This solution must be based, first, on an announcement by the US and its allies of a timetable for withdrawing their troops.’

‘Second, it would entail replacing the occupation forces with a UN force whose main task would be to fill the security void.’

‘This would be followed, thirdly, by the formation of an interim Iraqi government for six months under the supervision of the UN in order to conduct genuine parliamentary elections in which all parts of the Iraqi population would take part.’

‘Finally, the duly elected Iraqi government would take charge of the task of rebuilding the country's civil and military institutions.’

(Harith al-Dari, ‘No elections will be credible while occupation continues’, Guardian, 15 December 2005)

 

*****

BACKGROUND

JNV Anti-War Briefings over the period of occupation

***

JNV Anti-War Briefing 49:

TRANSITIONS & PRIORITIES - The Case for a UN Transitional Authority

(24 September 2003 Excerpt)

US/UK OUT OF IRAQ: UNITED NATIONS IN
The demand ‘End the occupation of Iraq’ is being interpreted in different ways within the movement. Straw polls at recent meetings in Bridgwater, Colchester, Ipswich, Brighton, Oswestry and Bangor showed substantial majorities in favour of a UN transitional authority; while one in West London, went the other way.

Furthermore, most people in the UK—and in Iraq—do not seem to support an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK forces from Iraq. According to a poll in the Daily Mirror, only 29 per cent of Britons favor a withdrawal ‘as soon as possible.’ 32 per cent want British troops to pull out gradually, with a date set for a final withdrawal, while another 32 percent felt they should remain in Iraq for as long as possible. (1 Sept.)

Most people seem to believe that an immediate withdrawal of US and UK forces without an alternative externally-supported political and security framework would run an unacceptable risk of social chaos. We in Justice Not Vengeance agree. We believe that there should be a UN Transitional Authority to assist Iraqi political groupings as they transform Iraq.

We believe that there should be immediate transfer of command and control of foreign military forces in Iraq to a UN command; a rapid US/UK military withdrawal from Iraq, and a simultaneous deployment of a UN military presence (which excludes US and British forces).

HOW DO THE IRAQI PEOPLE FEEL?
In a poll conducted in Aug. by Zogby International for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), only 31 per cent of people polled in four Iraqi cities wanted US/UK troop withdrawal within the next six months. (FT, 11 Sept., p. 11) A total of 65.5 per cent of Iraqis demanded withdrawal within a year. What does this mean? Probably that the Iraqi people are so frightened by the current levels of social chaos, violence and crime that despite the fact that they dislike the US/UK occupation they want some form of international intervention.

The AEI is a very right-wing US group. Why should we trust the poll results? Because they are such bad news for the US. ‘Asked whether in the next five years the US would “help” Iraq, 35.3 per cent said yes while 50 per cent said the US would “hurt” Iraq.’ (FT, 11 Sept., p. 11)

These results are consistent with an earlier poll for the Spectator/Channel 4 News, published in the Spectator on 19 July. This poll, conducted in Baghdad, found that if forced to choose between living under Saddam or under the US occupation, 7 per cent chose Saddam, 29 per cent chose the US, and 46 per cent expressed no preference. 67 per cent feared being attacked in the streets; 50 per cent feared being attacked at home or at work. 75 per cent of people said Iraq was more dangerous than before the war (54 per cent said ‘much more dangerous’). <www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/week_3/16_poll.html>

This earlier poll found that only 13 per cent wanted the US and British troops to leave immediately. As many as 76 per cent want them to stay for the time being—with a majority, 56 per cent, wanting them to remain for at least 12 months. The greater impatience in the later, Aug. 2003, poll (65.5 per cent of people wanting withdrawal within a year) is probably explained by the growing frustration and anger of the Iraqi people.

THE NEED FOR THE UN
The Iraqi people seem to want some outside military presence, for security reasons. But US and UK military forces should still be withdrawn rapidly. They are not a benign force, as demonstrated most forcibly by the US massacre in the western town of Falluja, where 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians were shot dead at peaceful demonstrations at the end of Apr. 2003. (See Briefing 47 After Falluja)

However, there are a lot of concerns about the UN in the movement.

‘Don’t the Iraqi people hate the UN after 12 years of murderous sanctions?’ Apparently not. Only 18.5 per cent of people polled in Aug. said the UN would ‘hurt’ Iraq over the next five years, and 50.2 per cent said it would ‘help’. (FT, 11 Sept., p. 11) The exact opposite of the figures for the US.

‘Isn’t the UN just a tool of Washington?’ It will be if the French plan for Iraq proposed on 12 Sept. is adopted—this calls for US/UK forces to remain in Iraq, under US command, alongside a UN Transitional Authority with no military role. But the UN isn’t always slavishly obedient. That’s why the US had to undermine and finally collapse the UN weapons inspectors in March. That’s why the US and UK failed to get a second Resolution.

‘Isn’t the UN just incompetent?’ Lots of UN missions have been badly run. But the problem generally has been the funding, staffing and restrictions imposed by the Member States of the UN. (See Linda Polman’s ‘We Did Nothing: Why the truth doesn’t always come out when the UN’ goes in for some gruesome examples.)

‘Can’t the Iraqi people do it by themselves?' But the Iraqi people seem to want outside security assistance (see earlier polls). Also, an unbiased external facilitator is going to be needed to negotiate agreements over oil revenues and federalism, between the Sunni, Shia and Kurdish communities. The UN did manage to hold the closest thing to free elections Cambodia has ever seen. The UN did assist the East Timorese (also in pretty violent circumstances) in drawing up a constitution, holding free elections, and establishing independence.

JNV believes that the presence of UN peacekeepers, and political support from the UN, can help to save lives and make the best of a very dangerous situation. The UN needs reform, but right now Iraq needs the UN.

***

JNV Anti-War Briefing 50:

‘THE HUNGER FOR DEMOCRACY - The First National Opinion Poll in Iraq’

(2 December 2003 Excerpt)

A UN transitional authority?
‘Only 16.7 per cent said they strongly agreed that Iraq needed a transition UN government.’ (News Corporation, news.com.au, 2 Dec.) 52 per cent said they rejected the idea of a UN government. (Morning Star, 2 Dec., p. 1)

What of the support given in an earlier Briefing for a UN Transitional Authority, reflecting the majority view in over twenty anti-war meetings in Wales, Scotland, England and across the United States (straw polls conducted by Milan Rai during a speaking tour)?

Much depends on the term ‘UN government’. There is a near-consensus in Iraqi political circles that the way forward is to grant sovereignty immediately to the Governing Council, despite the fact that it was appointed by the US Government.

The proposal JNV has made is for an independent UN Transitional Authority to support that provisional Iraqi government in the process of agreeing a new Iraqi constitution and holding national elections, while providing UN peacekeeping forces to replace US and UK occupation forces. Not a ‘UN government’.

The opposition to a ‘UN government’, which is real, may not be amount to opposition to a ‘UN Transitional Authority’ in the sense just outlined. Note that in Aug., the US group Physicians for Human Rights reported that 85 per cent of Iraqi people they polled wanted the UN to ‘play the lead role’ in Iraq. (letter, New York Times, 21 Aug., cited in Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, p. 243)

***

JNV Anti-War Briefing 83

US/UK OUT: UN IN - Insurgents And Experts Favour UN Troops

(26 July 2005 Excerpt)

THE FT: A STRUCTURED WITHDRAWAL
The Financial Times has proposed one way out of Iraq:

‘The core question to be addressed is this: is the continuing presence of US military forces in Iraq part of the solution or part of the problem? As occupying power, the US bears responsibility for Iraq under international law, and is duty-bound to try to leave it in better shape than it found it. But there is no sign of that happening.’

‘The time has therefore come to consider whether a structured withdrawal of US and remaining allied troops, in tandem with a workable handover of security to Iraqi forces and a legitimate and inclusive political process, can chart a path out of the current chaos.’

‘... Until eventual withdrawal, there would have to be a policy of military restraint, imposed above all on those US commanders who have operated without reference to their own superiors, let alone the notionally sovereign Iraqi government. [There also needs to be] an amnesty, which should help Iraqi authorities acquire the legitimacy to crush jihadist and other hold-outs. Ideally, the US would accompany withdrawal by stating it has no intention of establishing bases in Iraq, and instead wishes to facilitate regional security agreements.’ (FT, 10 September 2004)

JUAN COLE: THE UN OPTION
Juan Cole, perhaps the world’s most respected commentator on Iraq, recently put forward a complementary proposal.

The US-led forces cannot defeat the insurgency; their actions fuel the insurgency; and Iraq is coming closer to civil war.

However, ‘If the US drew down its troop strength in Iraq too rapidly, the guerrillas would simply kill the new political class and stabilizing figures such as Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Although US forces have arguably done more harm than good in many Sunni Arab areas, they have prevented set-piece battles from being staged by ethnic militias, and they have prevented a number of attempted assassinations.’

His solution? ‘In an ideal world, the United States would relinquish Iraq to a United Nations military command, and the world would pony up the troops needed to establish order in the country in return for Iraqi good will in post-war contract bids.’ (25 May 2005)

We should note two aspects of the Cole Plan: firstly, this is ‘a peace-enforcing, not a peace-keeping, force. That is, its rules of engagement should allow robust military operations to prevent the parties from massacring one another, and UN troops should always be permitted to defend themselves resolutely if attacked.’

Secondly, Juan Cole is willing to accept ‘perhaps, one or two remaining US divisions’ in this force—JNV does not accept such a possibility for the reasons given above, among others.

ACCEPTABLE TO THE IRAQIS?
This military presence should be accompanied by a UN political mission designed to support Iraqi parties in reaching agreement on a new political structure. Cole writes: ‘All Iraqis would see the United Nations as having more legitimacy than the United States. The UN would be much more likely to be able to negotiate a settlement among the Sunnis and Shiites than is the US.’

He asks: ‘Would the Iraqi government accept a United Nations military mission? Almost certainly. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has often attempted to involve the UN, and would welcome such a development. The Sunni Arabs would also much prefer to deal with the UN than with the US.’

THE PEOPLE ARE AGNOSTIC
A national Oxford Research International (ORI) poll of Iraq in March 2004, and a six-city IIACSS (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies) poll in May 2004, found little confidence in the UN (though dramatically more than in the occupation forces).

By June 2004, however, a national poll by Oxford Research International found 58 per cent expressing confidence in the UN, and 42 per cent not. The UN came out just ahead of the new Iraqi ministries, and way ahead of Iraqi political parties. 42 per cent of those polled favoured a UN transitional government of Iraq, and 58 per cent did not. (These polls and others have been collated by the Iraq Analysis Group.)

The evidence from mid-2004, then, is that there was quite possibly majority support for the UN; certainly not wholehearted rejection.

No publicly-available poll, however, has asked the key question: would you rather Iraq was under a US-UK occupation, a UN peace-enforcing mission/transitional administration, or just be left alone.

SHIA INSURGENTS PREFER THE UN
As negotiations broke down before the US onslaught on Najaf, a spokesperson for Muqtada al-Sadr called for UN troops to replace US troops: ‘We prefer the UN to the [US-led] occupation forces, because Iraq is a member of the United Nations,’ Sheikh Ahmed al-Shaibani said. ‘There is a big difference between the blue helmets [of UN troops] and the occupation troops.’

SUNNI INSURGENTS PREFER THE UN
In December 2003, US journalist Robert Collier interviewed ‘dozens of Shiite leaders, Sunni clerics, and Baathists of all levels in Baghdad and the nearby cities of Falluja, Samarra, and Sadr City’:

‘I asked them two simple questions: What would stop the rebellion? And what would persuade them and the guerrillas to give some breathing space to a new foreign coalition?’ Collier found differences, but also ‘commonalities’ that suggested ‘a transition plan that could stop most of the guerrilla attacks, allow the introduction of UN civilian and military forces, and facilitate the withdrawal of large numbers of American troops.’

Among the commonalities was this: ‘Give the United Nations overall control of the Iraqi transition process, even though not all attacks will cease. Baathists insist that the United Nations is not the enemy, despite the terrorist bombings in August and September that caused it to flee the country.'

' “If the United Nations is acting by itself, and not just on behalf of the Americans, it will be welcomed,” said a former high-ranking Foreign Ministry official. “When I see a blue helmet, it’s totally different from seeing an American helmet, even psychologically. If the United Nations took over from the Americans, it would create a new atmosphere.” ’ <http://tinyurl.com/869et>

THE UN’S FLAWS
The UN’s record in Iraq since the war is awful, as is admitted by Salim Lone, former UN Communications Director in Baghdad. (‘An uprising in support of democracy: By backing the US over elections, Kofi Annan inflamed the Iraq crisis’, Guardian, 13 April 2004 <http://tinyurl.com/9mha8>)

The UN is not a panacea.

However, as Lone also argues, ‘The only way to undercut the insurgency is through a political, not military, solution, and to negotiate a complete political and military handover to a UN mission with a strong Arab and Muslim component,’ a force unmistakeably free from US-UK control.

UN inspectors defied the US drive to war. With support from the international community, UN troops and diplomats can defy US domination, and help Iraq to find its own way to independence. If we can force the US out of Iraq, we can force the US out of a UN mission to Iraq.

MORE FROM JUAN COLE
Juan Cole: ‘My main point was to try to find a progressive/centrist approach to Iraq that avoided the two extremes of a) agreeing with the Bushies that we should stay “until the mission is accomplished” or b) simple-mindedly chanting “bring the troops home” with no thought for the world-class disaster that might befall us from the resulting power vacuum.’

JNV does not believe that anti-war activists who demand unconditional and immediate US/UK withdrawal are 'simple-minded'. However, we do believe, on the basis of votes taken in dozens of anti-war meetings throughout Scotland, Wales, England and the United States, that the majority of anti-war activists prefer to demand a rapid, structured withdrawal, with replacement by an unbiased international security force and international support for a transitional Iraqi process.

The best option available, and one that still may be acceptable to most Iraqi insurgent forces, seems to be the United Nations. A United Nations force freed from US domination by the overwhelming pressure of world opinion.

***

THE GUARDIAN ARTICLE

Harith al-Dari

'No elections will be credible while occupation continues: Iraq's current political process will not solve the crisis. Only a US and British pullout and a UN sponsored poll can do that'

The Guardian, Thursday December 15, 2005

Iraq has a long history of civilisation that has contributed both knowledge and wisdom to humanity. For many centuries, Islam also immunised Iraq against religious or sectarian strife and protected its population from the oppression that peoples of the ancient world had been subjected to. Generation after generation of Iraqis succeeded in maintaining peaceful coexistence among their diverse sects and races, despite the hardships and challenges they faced. It is by virtue of this cohesion that Iraq managed to rise up again and put its house in order in the wake of every calamity.

In recent times, one of the most difficult periods has been the past 35 years, during which Iraq was subjected to one-party rule by a minority that dragged the country through a series of misadventures, with heavy losses for the Iraqi people. During the last chapter of that painful era, Iraqis were for many years punished with sanctions that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, most of them children. The sanctions ended with an invasion, followed by an occupation by US and British troops, in total complete contravention of international law and in defiance of the UN. The invaders resorted to pretexts that soon proved to be false, including the lie about weapons of mass destruction.

Things became much worse under occupation, which has delivered none of the promised dividends of democracy, freedom, security and prosperity. Instead, Iraqis have been living in fear, poverty, oppression and a lack of freedom.

The occupation troops have resorted to excessive force, indiscriminate killing and collective punishment of the population. They have besieged entire towns, storming into them, instilling fear and horror among residents and destroying their homes. Iraqis have been humiliated and stripped of their basic human rights; they have been subjected to brutal and ghastly forms of torture, as the infamous Abu Ghraib prison case and the British troops' abuse of detainees in Basra have shown.

In the meantime there has been a scandalous failure by successive Iraqi governments to attend to the basic needs of the population. There has been a continuous rise in unemployment, which has been used to force young men to join the military and security establishments, which in turn throw them into the furnace of a destructive, yet futile, war. Many other young men find themselves drawn into drug trafficking because Iraq has become a theatre for this sinister industry although it had until the invasion been one of the few countries in the world that had no significant drugs problem.

The conduct and motivation of the occupation authorities were suspect right from the start, when they encouraged the organised theft of public properties; left weapon dumps unguarded; dissolved the Iraqi army and replaced it with militias whose agendas are incompatible with the collective interests of the Iraqi people; and when it introduced sectarian and racial quotas in political life, paving the way for serious sectarian and racial conflict that has been exploited by some political groups for their own exclusive ends.

This is what has become of Iraq under occupation. The US and its allies bear full legal and moral responsibility for all this: they are the ones who instigated it by illegally invading Iraq.

This is Iraq's reality today. It goes without saying that the continuation of this dreadful situation will have very serious repercussions not only for Iraq but for the region and the entire world.

What is the solution? The cause of the problem, the source of the trouble, is the occupation which has brought all this upon Iraq and the Iraqis. This has to be eliminated. But the US administration remains committed to its occupation and insistent on pushing ahead with a political process that is entirely without credibility.

The refusal by some Iraqi political groups and religious authorities to endorse this process is not born out of a rejection of peaceful political engagement or a decision to opt for a violent solution - as the occupation-sponsored media machine alleges - but stems from a belief in justice, freedom and independence as basic prerequisites for any genuine political process. None of these prerequisites are present, and therefore the current political process cannot provide the Iraqi people with peace and security.

The abuses witnessed during previous elections, as well as during the draft constitution referendum - which had the effect of denying the will of the majority of the Iraqis - only generate scepticism and reinforce the suspicions of those who are boycotting today's elections. Whether Iraqis take part or not, few regard these latest occupation-sponsored elections as any more free or fair than those that preceded them, and they will not help to solve the crisis facing the country.

For the political process to succeed it must proceed in a healthy environment which will take shape only when occupation comes to an end. The solution to the Iraqi problem, in the view of the Association of Muslim Scholars, is simple and logical: it is one that fully complies with international legality and would serve to reinforce it; that would put an end to the daily haemorrhage of Iraqi blood; that would lay the foundations for a state of law that protects the rights of all its citizens and seeks to secure basic human dignity; that provides an alternative to occupation, as explained in the memorandum we submitted to the United Nations and the Arab League.

This solution must be based, first, on an announcement by the US and its allies of a timetable for withdrawing their troops. Second, it would entail replacing the occupation forces with a UN force whose main task would be to fill the security void. This would be followed, thirdly, by the formation of an interim Iraqi government for six months under the supervision of the UN in order to conduct genuine parliamentary elections in which all parts of the Iraqi population would take part. Finally, the duly elected Iraqi government would take charge of the task of rebuilding the country's civil and military institutions.

Nothing will work in Iraq unless the root of the problem is addressed: the occupation must end.

• Harith Sulayman al-Dari is secretary general of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq harithaldari @ fastmail.fm