[5-19-03]

In a lengthy policy paper, the Presbyterian Washington Office points out some of the problems and dangers in a US occupation of Iraq, and argues that "the U.N. provides the most effective mechanism to infuse the postwar order with a semblance of legitimacy and minimize the potential for a violent backlash from the population."

The paper offers suggestions for action, and cites numerous statements from past PC(USA) General Assemblies affirming the role of the UN as a peacemaker.

The U.S. Needs Help in Iraq Reconstruction

2nd Quarter, 2003

Put Iraq humanitarian assistance and reconstruction under U.N. control

By Catherine Gordon

Saddam Hussein's regime has been toppled. While the advance through southern Iraq was more difficult than expected, and the occupation of Baghdad somewhat easier, Hussein's regime was easily fragmented. The Iraqi people can now rejoice in the dictatorship's overthrow.

The most difficult phase of the occupation is only beginning, however. The United States is now faced with the job of determining how to rebuild the infrastructure as well as establishing a government in a country with deep-seated ethnic divisions and anti-Americanism, and with a population devastated by 10 years of Baath Party rule and economic sanctions.

Saddam Hussein's Baath Party was dominated by Sunni Muslims, though Shiite Muslims make up approximately 60 percent of the population of Iraq. Because the Hussein regime suspected the Shiites of sympathy with Iran (a country ruled by a Shiite majority), the Iraqi Shiites faced brutal repression under Hussein's rule.

Because of the perceived threat from a Shiite fundamentalist regime in Iran, one of the major foreign policy goals of the U.S. (since the Iran hostage crisis of 1979) has been to contain this movement. In the 1980s, the U.S. backed Hussein's oppressive regime as a defense against Iran.

In a recent statement by the Bush Administration, officials said that they had underestimated the Shiites' organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country. One state department official stated, "It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out. I don't think anyone took a step backward and asked, 'What are we looking for?' The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein." (Glenn Kessler and Dana Priest, "U.S. Planners Surprised by Strength of Iraqi Shiites." The Washington Post, April 23, p.A1)

Not only are there the ethnic divisions to overcome, but there is also a tremendous need for humanitarian assistance. The Gulf War in 1991 devastated the infrastructure of Iraq. The living conditions have steadily deteriorated since then, due to the economic sanctions imposed by the international community and the dealings of the corrupt Hussein regime. Currently, the most urgent needs are for water, electricity and medical supplies. Hospitals in Baghdad and other areas have been overwhelmed by the number of injured. An effective system for moving and distributing food has not been put in place. And, because of the decades spent under a totalitarian regime, there is little to build on in terms of a groundwork for a liberal democratic government.

In terms of humanitarian assistance, the U.S. military has very little experience in delivering humanitarian aid on such a large scale. Interaction, a coalition of 160 humanitarian aid organizations, has said that the current operation in Iraq would be the first time the American military has been in direct control of relief operations. The Department of Defense's efforts to dominate reconstruction have complicated Interaction's ability to help people and have multiplied the dangers faced by relief workers in the field.

In addition, the U.S. has reportedly already promised Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi a significant role in the new government of Iraq but has not stated what this role will be. Chalabi is an Iraqi exile and leader of the U.S.-funded Iraqi National Congress (INC). He was convicted of fraud (in absentia) by a Jordanian court, regarding his business dealings while chairman of the Petra Bank of Jordan. Many people in Iraq question his intentions and credibility, and he has little apparent support among the Iraqi people.

There are also considerable questions about Jay Garner, the retired U.S. general who the Defense Department has named to head up the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs, which will be in charge of postwar Iraq. Mr. Garner is on leave from SY Coleman Technology, a high-tech defense contractor which makes missile guidance systems. He is the personal friend of Secretary Rumsfeld and was an assistant deputy chief of staff during the first Gulf War and directed several major Defense Department programs, including the Patriot anti-missile system. Garner's controversial links to the defense industry, as well as his fervently pro-Israel views, have raised serious questions about whether he is the right person for the job.

The dominance of the agenda of the Department of Defense has aroused concern not only abroad but also internally within the U.S. government. The CIA and the U.S. Department of State have expressed their doubts about Chalabi and have vigorously protested the Pentagon's strict control over postwar planning.

Congress also has expressed concern. They have barred money in President Bush's emergency supplemental request of $2.5 billion in reconstruction assistance from going to the Pentagon. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, stated that, "The secretary of state is the appropriate manager of foreign assistance and is so designated by law."

However, it is still likely that President Bush will use his influence to give the Pentagon complete control.

Why the United Nations?

Iraq's postwar needs are huge, and the U.S. must not try to go it alone. Despite the rift in the U.N. Security Council during the run-up to war, the United Nations, not just the U.S., must help Iraq create a new representative and indigenous government. Only the United Nations has the legitimate authority to provide governance and to help rebuild a new Iraqi government and civil society. The U.N. can bring international legitimacy and experience to a transitional process in Iraq, while a U.S.-run transition would confirm suspicions that the Administration is set on gaining a new foothold in the region.

The Bush Administration, however, has said the U.N. will not play a leading role in postwar reconstruction and transition, and it has begun to set the groundwork for a U.S.-installed transitional authority in Iraq. On March 26, Secretary of State Colin Powell testified that: "We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future."

The United Nations, however, has decades of experience in terms of assisting countries emerging from war. It has been effective in assisting in the rebuilding of conflict-ridden countries such as Bosnia, Cambodia, Haiti and El Salvador. It has helped in establishing peace agreements between former adversaries, distributed humanitarian assistance, supervised and conducted elections, monitored human rights and investigated violations, established the rule of law and trained civilian police, and demobilized former armed actors.

The Iraqi people will need to examine and evaluate their leadership so that they will no longer be ruled by an imposed authority, either foreign or domestic. The U.N. provides the most effective mechanism to infuse the postwar order with a semblance of legitimacy and minimize the potential for a violent backlash from the population. The decision to use force against Iraq without U.N. backing has severely damaged the political credibility of the U.S. abroad.

While our military credibility is strong, there appears to have been a significant increase in the mistrust of the motives of the U.S. on a global scale. The U.N. must be brought into Iraq and given a leadership role in order to mend the broken relationships and reassure the Iraqi people that crucial decisions on reconstruction, government building and humanitarian assistance will be made with the Iraqi people and a coalition of sympathetic nations.

Suggested Action

Contact your Members of Congress about the U.S. involvement in postwar Iraq. Use the following talking points:

Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction in Iraq

What Congress Should Do

Presbyterian General Assembly statements

From its inception, Presbyterians have seen the U.N. as a peacemaker and urged its support as "...our one hope of peace..." (PCUSA, 1949, p. 245).

a. Reaffirms the church's historic support for the United Nations as an instrument of peacemaking and peace building.

b. Rejoices in the contribution the U.N. has made in resolving world conflicts, solving problems that transcend national boundaries, and preparing the foundation for a global community.

h. Calls upon the United States government to (1) renew its commitments to the U.N. as the major international channel for its foreign policy, consistently and with good faith; (1995 Statement - PC(USA), pp. 487-488).

b. reaffirms the support of the Presbyterian Church (USA) for the U.N. and its efforts to prevent war and establish peace and calls upon the United States government to give reinvigorated support and constructive leadership to the U.N. as the chief instrument for dismantling warfare and building peace. (1996 Statement - PC(USA), p. 539.)