View previous stories
	Washington now faces a no-win situation in Iraq by Patrick Seale The Daily Star Lebanon   Beirut, 28 June, 2005   America is facing the real possibility of defeat in Iraq. The insurgency is as robust and as lethal as ever. U.S. troops are overstretched and thin on the ground, while Iraqi troops are far from ready to replace them. Sectarian violence is on the rise, suggesting that civil war is just round the corner. Every day brings its terrible tale of carnage. There seems to be no safety anywhere - and certainly not in Baghdad. Iraq under American occupation is slipping into uncontrollable chaos.   This is the backdrop to the visit to Washington that took place last Friday of Iraq's new Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari. For both Jaafari and U.S. President George W. Bush, this is an exceedingly difficult moment.   What should America do? Should it leave Iraq, or should it stay? No choice has been more difficult for an American president since the Vietnam War. For the first time, a leading American politician and potential presidential candidate, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, was brave enough to say: "The White House is completely disconnected from reality The reality is, we're losing in Iraq."   Even more dangerous for the "war party" - the neoconservative cabal that pressed for war against Iraq - is that it is losing the war in the United States. American opinion is tiring of the war. According to the latest Gallop poll, 57 percent of Americans think the war is "not worth it." Members of Congress report that their constituents are getting restless. As casualties mount, the word from the grass roots is "enough is enough!" Army recruitment rates have plunged, as have Bush's approval ratings, now down to 42 percent from 51 percent after the November elections. In the House of Representatives, a bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans are drafting a resolution calling on Bush to present a strategy for getting the U.S. out of Iraq.   In Brussels last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to drum up international support in men and funds for the Iraq war, but America's allies are extremely reluctant to get sucked into the quagmire. They want Iraqi reconstruction contracts and oil concessions, but they do not want to fight the insurgency. On the contrary, they are heading for the exit. The international coalition has disintegrated. Britain is the only country which still has a substantial fighting force in Iraq, alongside 139,000 American troops.   At a speech at Harvard University on June 7, a former CIA director, John M. Deutch, called for American troops to pull out of Iraq "as soon as possible." Echoing proposals made last January by Senator Edward Kennedy, Deutch said the U.S. should begin the military withdrawal and let Iraqis make their own political decisions.   The opposite view was put last week by The Economist - which has a large American readership. "Recent talk of shipping lots of troops home early next year looks wildly unrealistic," it declared. It quoted "top American officers in Iraq" as saying that the U.S. should not contemplate making significant troops withdrawals for at least two years, perhaps longer.   The Economist was a supporter of the war and still has not had second thoughts. It still thinks America should stay the course and advocates sending in more U.S. troops: "Indeed, if America is serious about vanquishing this insurgency," the magazine argued, "it needs more rather than fewer American boots on the ground To prevail in Iraq, America needs urgently to raise new forces that can be committed to a low-intensity counter-insurgency that might drag on for years."   Those who argue that America should fight on in Iraq point to the danger of "handing victory to the terrorists." An American withdrawal would, they allege, encourage extremists to redouble their campaign, not only against America and its interests in various parts of the world, but also against its regional allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.   This is precisely the argument used by those who oppose Israel's disengagement from Gaza. An Israeli withdrawal, they claim, would hand victory to Hamas and spread the message that terrorism pays. The thought of Hamas members dancing on the roofs of Jewish settlements seems to be the ultimate Israeli nightmare.   The opposite - and more convincing argument - is that Israel's brutal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is the main cause of anti-Israeli violence, and that Israel's security would best be served by evacuating, rather than settling, occupied Palestinian territory.   In the same way, the longer the U.S. stays in Iraq, the more attacks it will face. As I wrote long before the war, occupation breeds insurrection. A further argument for getting out is that the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq is turning that country into a training ground for nationalist and Islamic militants from many different countries who, sooner or later, will spread violence elsewhere. As a breeding ground for jihad, Iraq seems set to be playing the same role as Afghanistan in the 1980s.   There has, as yet, been no candid debate in the mainstream U.S. media, still less in Congress, on the controversial question of America's war aims. Why did the U.S. make war on Iraq? The official reasons - Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and its links with Al-Qaeda - have now been shown to be lies. What then were the real reasons?   It would seem that men like Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Bush himself - advocates of using military power to shape the world to America's advantage - were persuaded that Iraq presented a tremendous prize. Its oil reserves were equal to those of Saudi Arabia; its reconstruction was estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars to American firms; while its strategic position made it an ideal place from which to project U.S. military power to the oil-rich Gulf and to a vast region beyond. Seizing Iraq and turning it into a client state was a tempting goal.   Prominent neocons in the Pentagon, such as the former deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, his associate Douglas Feith, and their many friends and colleagues in and out of the administration, pressed for the destruction of Iraq and its army in order to make Israel more secure. They had long advocated regime change in Iraq, but the September 11, 2001 attacks gave them the pretext to push the case for war with greater urgency. They peddled the fantasy that, freed from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, a "democratic" Iraq would be a model for the entire Middle East, which could then be reshaped and restructured to make it pro-American..   Iraq has been weakened for at least a generation. But America's war aims remain out of reach. If the U.S. leaves Iraq, its efforts will have been in vain. But if it stays, the cost in men and treasure will inevitably mount, with no guarantee of political, economic or strategic benefits at the end of the day.   © 2005 The Daily Star
	Development, Security, Human Rights depend on each other by Louise Frechette United Nations   15/06/2005   (Following is the text of the address, as delivered, by Deputy UN Secretary-General Louise Fréchette to the Group of 77 Second South Summit, in Doha, Qatar, today)   For over 40 years, the Group of 77 has worked to make sure that the voice of a majority of the world's countries and inhabitants is heard loud and clear at the United Nations - and this year, more than ever, the creative engagement of the G-77 at the United Nations is vital.   In September, world leaders will meet in New York to review progress in the implementation of the Millennium Declaration. That Summit is an opportunity to remove some of the obstacles that have hampered the achievement of the vision of the Millennium Declaration - including insufficient resources for, and commitment to, our agreed development agenda, as well as lack of consensus on how to ensure security and human rights for all.   To seize this opportunity, all nations must recognize that development, security and human rights are ends in themselves - but also that they reinforce each other, and depend on each other. In our interconnected world, the human family will not enjoy development without security, it will not enjoy security without development, and it will not enjoy either without respect for human rights. And no nation can expect others to cooperate on the issues which it deems to be of greatest urgency if it does not recognize the need to cooperate also on the issues to which others give highest priority.   In March, the Secretary-General suggested a framework for decisions by Member States at September's Summit.   The number one priority must be an all-out global effort to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 - with both developing and developed nations living up to their commitments.   Your countries must have effective national strategies in place for achieving the Goals. You should also promote transparent and accountable governance, as many of you are already doing. And you need to do more to help each other in a range of fields - from trade and investment to technology transfer and human resource development.   But developed countries must also meet their responsibilities. The summit outcome must incorporate a major boost in international assistance, and development-conducive arrangements on trade and debt.   On this score, we have reasons to be hopeful.   Last month, the European Union agreed that its members would increase official development assistance substantially over the next decade, so that its more affluent members reach the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income by 2015.   Last Saturday, the G-7 Finance Ministers agreed to cancel immediately $40 billion of debt owed by 18 of the world's poorest nations, mostly in Africa, and there is the hope that the scheme will be extended to other countries soon.   And in a little over three weeks from now, we will be looking to the G-8 Summit in Gleneagles, chaired by Prime Minister Blair, for further positive decisions in favour of the developing world.   We must also press ahead with the development round of trade negotiations launched here in Doha, so that your countries can compete in the global trading system on a fair and equal basis.   The development agenda, vital as it is, is only one leg of a tripod whose other two legs -security and human rights - are also of great importance to all the countries represented here.   After all, your peoples suffer more than any others from the strains placed on the peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding, disarmament and human rights machinery of the United Nations.   They suffer most from inaction in the face of massive violations of human rights. They are too often the victims of acts of terrorism and the events that those acts unleash. They pay a high price for the proliferation of small arms, light weapons and land mines. They would pay an even higher price if our global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime were to be undermined, fuelling nuclear arms races and cutting off technology transfers vital for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.   September's Summit is your opportunity to work with others to strengthen multilateral action in all these areas. And just as you challenge rich countries to free up resources for development on a scale never before seen, so you, too, must be prepared to break new ground and forge consensus with other Member States on issues such as terrorism, human rights, and the responsibility to protect.   Last but not least, I come to the question of institutional reform. The institutions of the United Nations should reflect the world of 2005, not 1945.   Security Council reform is long overdue, and must be addressed in a way that recognizes its basic importance while not overshadowing the rest of the reform effort.   Member States need to ensure that the work of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council is more strategic and relevant to the pressing challenges facing the world's peoples.   The creation of a Peacebuilding Commission would enable the various actors involved in helping countries move from war to lasting peace to come together to agree on an integrated approach.   A new Human Rights Council would give us a chance to restore human rights to their prominence accorded by the UN Charter. Its purpose would not be to single out particular countries for punishment. We see too much of that now. Its job would be to promote respect for all human rights in all countries.   Secretariat reform is also vital. The Secretary-General needs the support of the Member States to ensure that the Secretariat is able to live up to the highest standards of performance, efficiency, accountability and transparency, and can implement the agreed priorities of the Member States in a fast-changing world.   These issues are today on the table. The time for creative engagement is now. A functioning, effective United Nations is critical for all countries - and for many of your citizens, it can mean the difference between life and death.   That is why the Secretary-General hopes that you will come to New York in September ready to approve a historic reform and renewal of the United Nations, so that we can unite the strength of nations large and small, and advance towards a world of development, security and human rights for all.
	View more stories