UN and Iraq: The Weakest Coalition

Authors Avatar

Mitchell Goulding

Professor Solomon Major

International Organizations

16 August 2007

UN and Iraq: The Weakest Coalition

        As the United Nations plans to reintroduce itself into the political landscape of Iraq, many realists argue that the United Nation’s intervention, much like the intervention of the United States, will fail. While the United Nations argue that the multilateral approach they offer is what Iraq needs, they also submit that the United States will still shoulder much of the responsibility in Iraq. For this reason, Iraq will react with the same fervor at the UN’s interference as they do to the United States’: mass bombings and civilian casualties.

        While UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon argues that the organization of many foreign ministers to help initiate reform in Iraq will work, he also submits that the safety of his officials will remain “of paramount concern.” The submission reveals the most important flaw in the United Nations’ plan: Iraq has become overridden with violence ever since both the United States and the United Nations entered the war. In fact, following the United Nations announcement of intervention, the death toll of the “quadruple bombing in an area of mud and stone houses in the remote northern desert on Tuesday evening reached at least 250 dead” with “350 wounded making it the deadliest coordinated attack since the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.” (Glanz 2007) This is not a solitary occurrence; the news consistently runs stories of murders and bombings from Iraq every day of the week. Frequently, the United Nations resorts to public condemnations after such attacks occur that were aimed at its’ organizations. The results in these condemnations further solidify the argument that the United Nations’ attempted humanitarian mission in Iraq will fail. One of the leading points of views regarding condemnations made by the United Nations contends that these “condemnations can antagonize states and harden their positions, leading to precisely the opposite of the intended effect.” (Mingst and Karns 2004) Such examples are also presented by the condemnations against Israel. Following repeated condemnations on Israel for its policies and after “establishing the Special Committee on Israeli Practices in the Occupied Territories to report to the General Assembly on Israeli abuses, Israel remains defiant.” (Mingst and Karns 2004). What makes Iraq different? Liberals will argue that human nature is inherently good and can improve its conditions of existence; through collective social instruction and reform, the states injustice and aggression can be mitigated. However, looking at the span of the entire US- Iraqi War, not once has United Nations intervention mitigated the aggression and internal strife between the factions of Iraq. Iraqi religious groups continue to struggle over solitary power over the other, an action explained by realists. The individual factions solely desire to act in order to protect their own interests; with any other group in power, the other faction feels threatened and insecure. Because security remains of utmost importance in the anarchical society we live in, these factions will continue to fight until the state of Iraq is separated, either by bloodshed or United Nations diplomatic intervention. Like liberals, social constructivists believe in an alternative means of reformation in Iraq. Social Constructivism holds the viewpoint that each state is shaped by its shared beliefs and socially constructed rules. While structural forces have minor influences, cultural practices affect behavior the most. Still, it remains impossible for the drastically different religious factions in Iraq to set aside their differences. Social constructivists’ desire to teach them to tolerate the other fails because of each faction’s congenital desire to supersede their competition.

Join now!

The United Nations and United States argue that quality of life has been improving in Iraq for both the Shi'as and the Sunnis; however, the reality lies in the concept of absolute vs. relative gains. While both parties have improved under the concept of absolute gains in regards to availability of services and in some aspects safety, once put into relative perspective, the gains become minimal if existent. To the Sunnis who were once dominant over the Shi’as in Iraqi politics, the rise of the Shi’as under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki represents a failure and regression into the lower tier ...

This is a preview of the whole essay