Every day brings fresh reports of violence and casualties in Iraq.  During September, suicide bombings occurred in Baghdad at a rate of more than one every two days.  I don't know what can or should be done to bring civil order, but I do know what won't—delivering the country over to the ministrations of the United Nations.

That is what Dr Toby Dodge, Reader in International Politics at the University of London, proposes in The Times of London.  Fully half of his column is devoted to a rundown of the current abysmal situation and how it came about.  Then, he makes his pitch for the UN.  Step one: The US must recognise that Iraq is too much for it to take care of.  Step two: France and the rest of the Security Council must let bygones be bygones and agree to pitch in and help.  Then the UN can take over.  Piece of cake.

Against this background the UN, with full and unrestricted backing from the European Union, has to take over running the country. Such a huge undertaking would involve giving Iraq a similar status to Kosovo. Iraq's sovereignty would have to be put temporarily into the hands of the international community.

These “temporary” handovers have a way of dragging on.  The UN is still administering Kosovo seven years after taking over running the region.

The beginning of this process would entail a new peace process overseen by neutral international arbitrators and guaranteed by the UN.

The historical record provides abundant evidence that the UN can’t “guarantee” peace unless all parties involved want peace.  Has Dr Dodge already forgotten that the UN was unable to prevent mass slaughter in Rwanda, Haiti, Somalia, etc.?  That doesn’t inspire much confidence in the ability of the UN to guarantee anything.

A multilateral force of peacekeepers not associated with the bungled invasion and its bloody aftermath would take their place.

Actually, the invasion went rather well; it’s the “aftermath” part that’s presenting problems.  And where are these peacekeepers going to come from?  Only weeks ago, the UN received an underwhelming response when it asked member nations to pony up soldiers for peacekeeping duty in Lebanon.

In return for a place at the table the [Iraqi] insurgents would have to agree to reject al-Qaeda forces in the country. Once a UN-sponsored peace and reconciliation process were in place, the Iraqi insurgents' goals, focused as they are on control of the Iraqi State, would be easily distinguishable from those of al-Qaeda, who are waging a permanent war against the West, with Iraq as a sideshow.

Why does Dr Dodge think that “Iraqi insurgents” and “transnational jihadists” are mutually exclusive groups and that the former would readily agree to “reject” the latter?  The US and Britain are now trying to neutralise al-Qaeda’s forces in Iraq.  After the US and Britain are replaced by a UN peacekeeping force, who will drive al-Qaeda from the country?  “Iraqi insurgents”?

Once both the international community and America have got past the deep divisions caused by the invasion, the way is open for far more aid and expertise to pour into the country.

That fond wish is just as much pie-in-the-sky as America’s goal of establishing genuine democracy in Iraq; and it would prove just as difficult to implement.

Dr Dodge seems to think that Kosovo is some kind of model for his Iraqi proposal.  Well, let’s consider Kosovo.  It hasn’t been in the news much since NATO handed the region over to the UN in 1999.  Does that mean Kosovo is traveling the road to independence in a harmonious and orderly fashion?

Actually, no.  I just went to the UN News Centre page, entered “Kosovo” in the search box, specified news from the last 30 days, and here’s some of what came up:

A search for “Kosovo” at Google News turns up more bad news, just from today:

No suicide bombers, true, but seven years of UN supervision hasn’t exactly brought peace and freedom to Kosovo.  Given the UN’s track record there and elsewhere in the world, there’s no reason to think it could do any better in Iraq.

 Previous related posts: