UN Staff Oppose Proposed Iraq Resolution
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Staff Council, representing 25,000 staff members, unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday calling on Secretary General Ban Ki-moon not to deploy any additional staff members to Iraq and to remove those currently serving at the duty station in Baghdad.
The resolution cites the "unacceptably high level of risk to the safety and security of U.N. personnel currently serving in Iraq," and stresses that, "the breakdown of law and order in Iraq has created a place where aid workers have become targets and pawns."
"The security situation in Iraq is getting worse every day," Emad Hassanin, first vice president of the Staff Union, told IPS.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. and Britain are circulating a draft resolution aimed at expanding the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI).
A small U.N. contingent has been in Iraq since August 2004, after Kofi Annan, former U.N. secretary-general, pulled all U.N. staff out of Iraq in October 2003. The U.N. withdrawal came after two bomb attacks at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad which resulted in 22 staff members deaths.
Annan issued a report following the bombings in 2003. Ban issued a situation report in June 2007. "According to the reports the situation is worse now," Hassanin said, stressing that "nothing has been done to improve security of staff since 2003." In fact, a mortar exploded in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone during Ban's televised press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in March.
"The U.N. needs to play an enhanced role in helping Iraqis at the present time," Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., told reporters here.
"This is a very important issue, the issue of Iraq for the region, for the country, and for the world and therefore the U.N. needs to play a bigger role and help Iraqis," Khalilzad said.
"One of the advantages of the U.N. is that it can reach out to many groups and some groups that do not want to talk to other external players are willing to talk to the U.N.," Khalilzad said, pointing out that, "Ayatollah Sistani, one of the influential figures of Iraq did not speak to the U.S./UK reps but does engage with the U.N. envoy."
"We are on a very strong effort to increase the numbers of international staff in Iraq," B. Lynne Pascoe, U.N. under-secretary-general for political affairs, said after briefing the Security Council Tuesday.
"The current ceiling is 65. I think by the fall, by October, we'll be up to about 95," he said.
Asked about a timetable for the withdrawal of the U.S. troops to go hand in hand with the expansion of the U.N. role, Khalilzad said, "We understand that the issue of the coalition presence is an issue on which Iraqis disagree. But I also know, you all know that I was in Iraq for almost two years, that no community in Iraq would like a precipitous U.S. withdrawal."
"I do not understand the logic of sacrificing the lives of U.N. civilian staff to save face of a few strong member states," Hassanin stressed.
The draft resolution extending the mandate of UNAMI is an "exit strategy of a few member states," Hassanin added.
The political situation is bad, if it improves there may be a role for an enhanced U.N. presence, Hassanin explained.
"The U.S. has been talking about a 'new and important role' for the U.N. in Iraq, as part of a public relations campaign about how things are getting better, stability is just around the corner, and so on," James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum in New York, told IPS. "But in fact, the security environment is deteriorating there and the U.N. cannot operate safely or effectively."
"Meanwhile, the Multinational Force (under Security Council mandate) continues to commit daily violations of human rights and humanitarian law, in an occupation that three-quarters of Iraqis firmly oppose," Paul said.
"The U.N. Security Council is closing its eyes to the reality of the world's most serious security and humanitarian crisis," Paul continued, stressing that, "There is astounding neglect of the real situation in Iraq."
Four million Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) have left their homes as sectarian fighting has spread through the country. The U.N. estimates that more than 100,000 people are fleeing Iraq each month.
"Iraq is far from being stable," an Asian diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity told IPS.
"With the incidence of bombings daily, there is an appalling humanitarian problem," the diplomat stressed.
The draft resolution ignores the "problem of 'humanitarian space' in Iraq due to the close identification of UNAMI with the Multinational Force," Paul said. This is partly due to the "serious problem of Iraqi funds being used for U.S. military-run 'humanitarian' programs like the Commanders' Emergency Response Programme," he explained.
The urgent problem of food availability and the declining access of Iraqis to the public distribution system are also ignored, as well as the need for funds for emergency assistance, especially for refugees outside of Iraq, Paul said.
The Security Council is expected to vote on the UNAMI resolution on Thursday. Some Security Council delegations, including Belgium, France, Indonesia and South Africa, have reportedly raised concerns with the draft which was circulated on Aug. 1, just nine days before the expiration of the current resolution on Aug. 10.
Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
9 Comments so far
Show AllIf you want to see a good explanation of why we are still bogged down in Iraq, I highly recommend this PBS site for the program and the movie "No End in Sight". In my opinion, the people that made the movie got it right.
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200708/20070810.html
Don't recall ever hearing which group or faction claimed responsibility for the bombings that killed 22 U.N. employees. If it was "Al Quida in Iraq" that makes logical sense since they always and only wish to destabilize whatever exists. If it was not that group but one of the indigenous factions with nationalist stirrings, that too makes abundant sense, since it is hard to escape the defacto impression that the U.N. was powerless to stop the American destruction of Iraq. Then there is the possibility that it was a U.S. "black ops" mission. (This last scenario seems likely since I DO NOT recall any serious efforts to determine who was responsible.)
Yes I know, many humans high and low did have enough balls to say "NO, this (pre-emptive war) should not be allowed or sanctioned by the human community at large." It is just that the Bushites had bigger balls in saying "Screw you, we're going to do it anyhow. Think you can stop us?"
Just like Hitler and the Nazis, and the whole world appeased Herr Bush.
Zig Heil!
The UN should assist the displaced Iraqis who have left Iraq. They should not extend humanitarian aid and offer stabilizing international force until the sectarian war is ended.
The UN should do all it can to avoid assisting the U.S. in getting Iraq's oil. It must not appear to be aiding Bush's criminal enterprise. They would look like the imasculated Democratic party, which continues to hide and acquiesse in the face of fear.
FOUR MILLION REFUGEES ALREADY AND 100,000 MORE FLEEING EVERY MONTH. IS THIS SUCCESS, BUSH? RESIGN NOW IN DISGRACE AND GET OUT OF THE COUNTRY THAT YOU FALSELY INVADED. GOOD RIDDANCE USA. LET THE IRAQIS HAVE THEIR COUNTRY AND THEIR OIL BACK.
Good for the UN staff. They should propose Ban-Ki-Moon to shift his office to Iraq, since he is the viceroy of United Nations of America. UN no longer represents all the nations in the world. It has become UNITED NATIONS OF AMERICA.
Why is the UN even innvolved with the illegal US-UK occupation?
Koffi Annan said it best: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
"American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defense, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction (HAHAHAHA-GOOD ONE). However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defense, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorizing war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a skeptical security council.
We should kill our system then.
With the U.S. big guns there will be no change and no peace untill we kill every one that disagrees with our system. History proves that Native Americans, Mexican war,Cuba,Korea,Vietnam,Panama,Nicaraqua ect.
The oil will be controlled by the corporate friends of Bu$h the inferior and Shotgun Dick or it will not be on the market. So far it is working for them.
Deaths are irrelevant.
Morals are irrelevant.