The US often acts as a headstrong kid. When it wanted to barge into Iraq and do the cowboys act in 2003, it had disregarded the UN completely. Its moves to obtain an UN Security Council resolution to legitimize its invasion were stalled by Russia, France and China. It went ahead anyway, greatly weakening the already low authority of the world body.
Now that it finds itself in a mess, it wants the UN to step in and help it. Talk of the kid who remembers his parents only when he is in trouble.
Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had been miffed by the US attitude and had done the bare minimum in Iraq. He had further reduced the UN presence after a suicide bomber targeted its mission in Baghdad in August 2003.
His successor Ban Ki-Moon has proved more receptive to US requests for a greater role in Iraq. UN ia all set to come with a new vigour into the war-torn country. Ironically, its staff, presently posted in Baghdad, wants to leave as soon as possible.
It is difficult to say with emphasis that UN will make a big difference by increasing its engagement. The only advantage it has over the US is its neutrality. This will enable it to open channels of communication with all the parties involved and play a mediatory role in future talks between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish representatives to reach an understanding to stop the civil strife.
But the problem is, only the US and Britain are behind increased UN role in Iraq. Unless the other big three Russia, China and France step in too, UN’s presence will prove an exercise in futility. France with its pro-US president Sarkozy may join the party, but the other too have been at loggerheads with US and UK lately and will remain uncooperative.
