Guest Analyst
Want Middle East Stability? Move UN to
Iraq
by Prof. Cynthia E. Ayers and COL (R) David W. Cammons
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official
policy or position of the U.S. Army, the Dept. of Defense, or any
organization within the U.S. government.
Get the U.S. out of the U.N.!, a sign near Gettysburg shouts.
The United Nations sabotages Americas security, author Eric
Shawn declared in his book The U.N. Exposed. Iranian spokesman
Gholam-Hossein Elham told reporters that the U.N. must be
relocated from the U.S. And a few days after Venezuelan president
Hugo Chavezs rant before a U.N. audience, a New York Daily News
editorial encouraged Chavez to take the atrophied, self-abasing
remains of a global idea 2,100 miles to Caracas!
The idea of moving U.N. headquarters seems to resonate with
manythose who believe that the U.S. is being manipulated by
anti-American and anti-Israeli elements within the U.N., as well as
those who feel that the U.S. is doing the manipulation. For
Americans, it would of course mean the loss of a global status
symbolbut it would also mean the reacquisition of valuable New
York real estate, fewer cases of diplomatic immunity for the legal
systems, and perhaps a reduction of anti-American sentiment
worldwide.
Where should it go? Try Iraq. While moving the U.N. headquarters to
Venezuela or Iran is probably not wise, moving it to Iraq might be
a strategic coup. There is even a ready-made location for itSaddam
Husseins 600-room palace and compound constructed over the remains
of the ancient city of Babylon. Americans might even consider
footing the bill for the relocation.
Think about it. If the U.S. should be forced to abruptly withdraw
from Iraq, a peacekeeping forcesomething similar to the
International Security Assistance Force now in Afghanistanwould
probably be deployed. Yet peacekeeping forces under temporary
mandates, with all the associated communications problems,
functional restrictions, and managerial arguments that so often
spring from ego or nationalist pride, generally dont work. They
would be even less viable in a region like Iraq, where the threat
of kidnapping and indescribable torture would keep many countries
from participating. Relocating U.N. headquarters to Iraq, however,
might actually be a reasonable alternative.
Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan agreed with member states
demands for the U.S. to leave Iraq. Yet he admitted that any force
reductions would have to be planned so as not to lead to greater
violence and instability. Moving the U.N. to Iraq might be the only
method of ensuring that a departure of U.S. forces would not leave
the country and the region in chaos.
Considering the severe cutbacks in U.N. personnel within Iraq
following the 2004 truck bombing of its Baghdad compound, the idea
might seem ridiculous; but the mission of the U.N. is to promote
and preserve peace. In order to maintain its fledgling democracy,
Iraq needs international commitment, an inducement to stop
factional violence, and a stable form of income not subject to the
terrorists reprisals. It is hard to imagine a more visible and
binding form of commitment than a change of such magnitude. The
prestige factor alone might guarantee stability. Middle East
leaders may seize upon the move as recognition of the regions
importance, thus stimulating their sense of self- and nationalist
esteem while gaining further incentive for dealing with internecine
conflict.
It would be to the benefit of all members to ensure the security of
the new headquarters. A multinational coalition under the auspices
of a colocated U.N. would be perceived as a more neutral and
acceptable force. Additionally, since the security of the U.N.
would rest on the stability of the new Iraqi regime and vice-versa,
there would be a strong mutual interest in maintaining a working
relationship between the multinational coalition and the security
forces of Iraq.
As a model for coexistence, a resident U.N. headquarters could
inspire the three factions within Iraq to forego violence, thus
reducing the need for security forces. The move might even satisfy
Irans leaders sufficiently for them to quit sending weapons into
Iraq. Chavez (as a new-found friend of Irans president Mahmud
Ahmadinejad) and possibly even militant Islamic extremists (Sunni
or Shia) would find it hard to justify verbal or physical attacks
against a U.N. headquarters based in the heart of the Middle
East.
New York is an expensive city, and representation at the U.N. is
currently a costly endeavor. Poor countries would benefit from the
move, since costs associated with membership would be drastically
reduced. Representatives who may have been selected specifically
because of social status and wealth might be replaced with
individuals who maintain a higher commitment to the U.N. mission.
The remaining big spenders should have a positive effect on the
Iraqi job market and improve the overall economy of the entire
region, which might in turn reduce the tendency to engage in
violence. With such a large and formidable presence, fundamental
human rights issues ranging from honor killing and female
infanticide to state-imposed death sentences for children,
religious converts, and political dissidents (as opposed to those
which U.S. representatives have publicly identified as having been
driven by anti-Israeli bias) could be more effectively addressed,
transforming the region developmentally in the process.
Whats in it for the United States? For those Americans
disappointed with the malfeasance often associated with U.N.
leadership, the move would be a victory. It could be similarly spun
for those who feel that the U.S. has not been sufficiently deferent
to or reliant
upon the U.N.an implication that the U.N. could and should do what
the sole superpower could not. Domestically, the move would be a
win-win scenario.
Globally, a move from American soilwhere location might appear to
indicate ownershipcould reduce anti-Americanism. It might change
the perception of the U.S. from that of a superpower with imperial
aspirations to simply a member of a global force for peace; thus, a
positive diplomatic scenario.
Recent debates over U.S. involvement in Iraq seem to focus on only
two alternativesa surge or an immediate reduction in force. The
issue has become a politically polarized hot-potato. The search for
alternatives seems to have stalledbut if there is to be hope for
stability in the Middle East, consideration must be given to all
possible solutions. The idea of relocating U.N. headquarters to
Iraq should therefore be open for discussion, and not simply
dismissed as untenable.
Prof. Ayers is a Visiting Professor and COL Cammons (U.S. Army
Retired) is a former Senior Research Associate at the U.S. Army War
Colleges Center for Strategic Leadership.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email
notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.