|
By Jo-ana D’Balcazar
Over objections by many council members, the United
States gained another impressive victory when the U.N. Security
Council voted overwhelmingly14-0 to end the 13-year sanctions on
Iraq imposed after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
However, the key outcome, is not only the lifting of the sanctions,
but the power given to the United States and Great Britain to steer
Iraq’s economic and political transition, plus transferring legal
control over Iraq’s oil from the UN until the establishment of a
new Iraqi government. This fact represents a slap not only to the
UN but also to France, Germany, China, and Russia - all opposing
the U.S.-led war because of their own billionaire investments including
Iraq's oil industry. Syria, the only Arab member of the UN Security
Council and also a state sponsoring terrorism, ironically, did not
participate in the vote. Undoubtedly, the vote marked another victory
for President George W. Bush and a knockout for Syria, France, Russia,
and Germany. The resolution showed the dominant role of U.S. and
U.K. The question is whether or not the new conciliatory attitude
of France, Russia, and Germany is genuine? I don't think so.
The relevance of the UN approval to lift the sanctions
translates that the U.S. now has earned the so-called legal approval
of the international community represented by the UN. The Security
Council will review the resolution within 12 months from its implementation,
after France, Russia, and Germany, which opposed the war, insisted
to have this clause for their approval. France and Russia with veto
power, simply opted for a more a strategic decision than opting
for an opposition to save their economic interests in Iraq and not
risk their relations with the U.S. and UK. However, according to
the resolution, foreign creditors, including France and Russia,
cannot claim Iraq’s oil revenues until a recognized Iraqi government
is established. Hence, at the moment, Iraq’s oil revenues will be
used for rebuilding Iraq. The revenues will go into a new Iraqi
Development Fund controlled by the U.S and Britain, although overseen
by an international board. The resolution also serves to open investment
in Iraq for foreign companies that consider it a potential consumer
market as Iraq has the second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.
The assumption that Syria did not participate in
the vote because it did not want to legalized U.S.-British occupation
in Iraq is wrong. First, it is not an illegal occupation, neither
it was a unilateral decision. The U.S.-led war was based under UN
Resolution 1441, which was unanimously approved by the 15 members
of the Security Council, including Syria. The resolution called
for Hussein to disarm or face the consequences. Contrary to President
Clinton who did not have the approval of the Security Council when
he attacked Bosnia in 1995, Iraq in 1998, and Yugoslavia over Kosovo
in 1999, President Bush consulted the UN. Sarcastically, after UN
approved 1441 it failed to exercise its authority again by not having
Hussein accountable, as he had continually violated UN resolutions
for over 10 years. Thus, the U.S. demanded the UN to live up to
its resolutions and show its relevance in global security. The point
is that the UN missed its defining moment to show its relevance
and failed miserably. It was the U.S. and Britain that put and end
to Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime and went to disarm him and freed
Iraqis from oppression. Time was simply over for Hussein's game.
Syria’s ambassador to the UN, Mikhail Wehbe told
Reuters that he did not have "enough time to consider the resolution,"
despite all council members had the typical 24 hours before casting
their vote. The fact is that Syria abstained from voting for two
reasons. First, a "Yes" vote would mean that indeed it
was legitimizing the U.S.-Britain occupation and upsetting the Arab
world, especially the extreme radical Muslim groups supported by
Syria. Yet, it is contradictory because Syria already "legitimized"
the so-called occupation when it approved UN Resolution 1441. Second,
a "No" vote would mean a declared challenge to the U.S.
The point is that since the U.S. considers Syria a state sponsoring
terrorism, a "No" vote would have created more chaos in
the already controversial U.S.-Syria relations. Hence, Syria by
abstaining opted for the safest choice.
This is the second time Syria adopted a similar
position. The first time was in March 2002 when the Security Council
called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities.
The reason then was because the resolution condemned the homicide
bombings against Israeli civilians and not mentioning Israeli attacks
on Palestinians. The bottom line is that Syria does not consider
homicide bombings illegal, but sees terrorist groups and "freedom
fighters," with the exception of al-Qaeda. Syria’s protest
for not mentioning "Israeli attacks on Palestinians" is
also absurd. Israel attacks the homes or infrastructures of Palestinian
terrorists only as a response for Israeli civilians killed with
homicide bombings. Hence, it is not an attack but a counterattack.
The lack of will from the Palestinian Authority to stop terrorism
is appalling. Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority takes part
of terrorism through its militant groups of al-Fatah, Tanzim, and
al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Therefore, the question is, "Should
Israel wait until is completely annihilated by terrorists before
it defends itself"?
The fact is that Syria is in shaky waters with the
U.S. and is avoiding a confrontational situation. Allegedly some
of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were transferred to Syria,
while others are still somewhere in Iraq. Reportedly, Syria also
sent terrorists, or as they call them "freedom fighters"
to fight against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Therefore, what
is needed is consistent policies, more troops to guarantee security
and expert inspectors to look for these WMD. The UN could contribute
with some inspectors who are familiar with Iraq’s WMD and really
commited to find them. In other words, although Hussein has been
deposed, complete disarmament is not yet guaranteed and the threat
to global security is still present. Can you imagine what will happen
if Syria -a terrorist state sponsor - would do with those weapons?
This is the reason why the approval of the Syrian Accountability
Act is vital to stop terrorism, especially in Israel where Syria
sponsors the Lebanese Shiite Muslim organization Hizbollah among
other Arab-Palestinian groups. Furthermore, if Syria wants to be
a credible participant in the fight against terrorism, it must close
terrorist camps and expel terrorist organizations. Where is the
logic of having Syria enlisted in the Arab-Israeli peace talks when
it is part of the problem?
Therefore, finding WMD before they end up in the
hands of terrorists is important for global security. Let’s not
forget that Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, prior to the
war that there was a possibility of Iraq still possessing about
10,000 liters of anthrax and 6,500 more chemical weapon warheads
than previously thought. And no one knows what happened with them.
Finally, although the UN resolution gave broad powers
to the U.S. and Britain to run Iraq during the reconstruction period,
the final power will be vested by Iraqis themselves to run Iraq
after the establishment of a more democratic and secure government
working for its own people. However, this will not be an overnight
miracle rather it demands a learning process. Yet, the challenge
is still on for U.S. policymakers to define a clear policy against
terrorists and state sponsoring terrorism. Otherwise, what is the
purpose of publishing the U.S. State Department list of states sponsoring
terrorism and, at the same time, put a blind eye, pretending not
to see when they support terrorism? Will Syria boycott another vote
in the UN concerning an Arab country? Similarly, the UN "MUST"
restore its lack of credibility by standing firm to its objective
and resolutions to protect global security or become irrelevant.
Jo-ana D'Balcazar, M.A., Political Analyst in International Relations,
specializes on the Middle East Crisis and the European Union. Send
comments to politics2see@hotmail.com.
|
.gif){kind=spacer}
