Saddam Hussein’s regime has been toppled. While the advance through southern Iraq was more difficult than expected, and the occupation of Baghdad somewhat easier, Hussein’s regime was easily fragmented. The Iraqi people can now rejoice in the dictatorship’s overthrow.

The most difficult phase of the occupation is only beginning, however. The United States is now faced with the job of determining how to rebuild the infrastructure as well as establishing a government in a country with deep — seated ethnic divisions and anti-Americanism, and with a population devastated by 10 years of Baath Party rule and economic sanctions.

Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party was dominated by Sunni Muslims, though Shiite Muslims make up approximately 60 percent of the population of Iraq. Because the Hussein regime suspected the Shiites of sympathy with Iran (a country ruled by a Shiite majority), the Iraqi Shiites faced brutal repression under Hussein’s rule.

Because of the perceived threat from a Shiite fundamentalist regime in Iran, one of the major foreign policy goals of the United States (since the Iran hostage crisis of 1979) has been to contain this movement. In the 1980s, the United States backed Hussein’s oppressive regime as a defense against Iran.

In a recent statement by the Bush Administration, officials said that they had underestimated the Shiites’ organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country. One state department official stated, “It is a complex equation, and the United States government is ill—equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out. I don’t think anyone took a step backward and asked, ‘What are we looking for?’ The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.” (Glenn Kessler and Dana Priest, “United States Planners Surprised by Strength of Iraqi Shiites.” The Washington Post, April 23, p.A1)

Not only are there the ethnic divisions to overcome, but there is also a tremendous need for humanitarian assistance. The Gulf War in 1991 devastated the infrastucture of Iraq. The living conditions have steadily deteriorated since then, due to the economic sanctions imposed by the international community and the dealings of the corrupt Hussein regime. Currently, the most urgent needs are for water, electricity and medical supplies. Hospitals in Baghdad and other areas have been overwhelmed by the number of injured. An effective system for moving and distributing food has not been put in place. And, because of the decades spent under a totalitarian regime, there is little to build on in terms of a groundwork for a liberal democratic government.

In terms of humanitarian assistance, the United States military has very little experience in delivering humanitarian aid on such a large scale. Interaction, a coalition of 160 humanitarian aid organizations, has said that the current operation in Iraq would be the first time the American military has been in direct control of relief operations. The Department of Defense’s efforts to dominate reconstruction have complicated Interaction’s ability to help people and have multiplied the dangers faced by relief workers in the field.

In addition, the United States has reportedly already promised Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi a significant role in the new government of Iraq but has not stated what this role will be. Chalabi is an Iraqi exile and leader of the United States-funded Iraqi National Congress (INC). He was convicted of fraud (in absentia) by a Jordanian court, regarding his business dealings while chairman of the Petra Bank of Jordan. Many people in Iraq question his intentions and credibility, and he has little apparent support among the Iraqi people.

There are also considerable questions about Jay Garner, the retired United States general who the Defense Department has named to head up the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs, which will be in charge of postwar Iraq. Mr. Garner is on leave from SY Coleman Technology, a high-tech defense contractor which makes missile guidance systems. He is the personal friend of Secretary Rumsfeld and was an assistant deputy chief of staff during the first Gulf War and directed several major Defense Department programs, including the Patriot anti-missile system. Garner’s controversial links to the defense industry, as well as his fervently pro-Israel views, have raised serious questions about whether he is the right person for the job.

The dominance of the agenda of the Department of Defense has aroused concern not only abroad but also internally within the United States government. The CIA and the United States Department of State have expressed their doubts about Chalabi and have vigorously protested the Pentagon’s strict control over postwar planning.

Congress also has expressed concern. They have barred money in President Bush’s emergency supplemental request of $2.5 billion in reconstruction assistance from going to the Pentagon. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, stated that, “The secretary of state is the appropriate manager of foreign assistance and is so designated by law.”

However, it is still likely that President Bush will use his influence to give the Pentagon complete control.

Why the United Nations?
Iraq’s postwar needs are huge, and the United States must not try to go it alone. Despite the rift in the U.N. Security Council during the run-up to war, the United Nations, not just the United States, must help Iraq create a new representative and indigenous government. Only the United Nations has the legitimate authority to provide governance and to help rebuild a new Iraqi government and civil society. The U.N. can bring international legitimacy and experience to a transitional process in Iraq, while a United States-run transition would confirm suspicions that the Administration is set on gaining a new foothold in the region.

The Bush Administration, however, has said the U.N. will not play a leading role in postwar reconstruction and transition, and it has begun to set the groundwork for a United States-installed transitional authority in Iraq. On March 26, Secretary of State Colin Powell testified that: “We didn’t take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future.”

The United Nations, however, has decades of experience in terms of assisting countries emerging from war. It has been effective in assisting in the rebuilding of conflict-ridden countries such as Bosnia, Cambodia, Haiti and El Salvador. It has helped in establishing peace agreements between former adversaries, distributed humanitarian assistance, supervised and conducted elections, monitored human rights and investigated violations, established the rule of law and trained civilian police, and demobilized former armed actors.

The Iraqi people will need to examine and evaluate their leadership so that they will no longer be ruled by an imposed authority, either foreign or domestic. The U.N. provides the most effective mechanism to infuse the postwar order with a semblance of legitimacy and minimize the potential for a violent backlash from the population. The decision to use force against Iraq without U.N. backing has severely damaged the political credibility of the United States abroad.

While our military credibility is strong, there appears to have been a significant increase in the mistrust of the motives of the United States on a global scale. The U.N. must be brought into Iraq and given a leadership role in order to mend the broken relationships and reassure the Iraqi people that crucial decisions on reconstruction, government building and humanitarian assistance will be made with the Iraqi people and a coalition of sympathetic nations.

Suggested Action
Contact your Members of Congress about the United States involvement in postwar Iraq. Use the following talking points:

Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction in Iraq

• The war in Iraq has put millions of civilians at risk. Many are facing critical food and water shortages, and hospitals have been overwhelmed by casualties. The use of cluster bombs is endangering civilians in the immediate conflict and could lead to many more deaths and injuries in the aftermath of war.
• Humanitarian needs are not being adequately met. Aid is not reaching all those in need and is being distributed haphazardly. Under the terms set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention, the United States as the Occupying Power must be prepared to provide aid if Iraq is too insecure for civilian agencies to operate; however, as soon as conditions allow, U.N. agencies and humanitarian organizations should be afforded quick, safe access to provide assistance.
• It is incumbent upon the United States and Congress to demonstrate a sincere commitment, backed up by adequate funding, to meeting the needs of the Iraqi people in the short and long term. The first supplemental funding to cover the costs of war in Iraq included just $2.5 billion for both humanitarian assistance and reconstruction, compared with more than $60 billion for the first phases of military operations. Much more funding will be needed to ensure adequate relief and reconstruction in the months and years ahead.
• To gain international legitimacy, humanitarian assistance and post-conflict reconstruction should be administered by civilian agencies, not military forces, and should be coordinated through legitimate international authorities. Military involvement can compromise the effective delivery of aid and lead to unintended consequences, potentially threatening the security of civilian aid workers.
• Only the United Nations has the legitimate authority to provide governance and to help rebuild a new Iraqi government and civil society. The U.N. can bring international legitimacy and experience to a transitional process in Iraq, while a United States-run transition would confirm suspicions that the Administration is set on gaining a new foothold in the region.
• The Administration has said the U.N. will play a role but not “the” leading role in postwar reconstruction and transition. It has already begun to set the groundwork for a United States-installed transitional authority in Iraq. On March 26, Secretary of State Colin Powell testified that “We didn’t take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future.”

What Congress Should Do

• Support a leading role for the United Nations in providing humanitarian assistance and in the transition and reconstruction of Iraq. Representatives should affirm their support for U.N. leadership in post-conflict Iraq by cosponsoring H.Con.Res. 122.
• Ensure that adequate funding is included in future appropriations to meet the humanitarian and rebuilding needs of the Iraqi people in the short and long term.
• Hold the Administration accountable to international humanitarian law and insist that the United States do all it can to protect civilians and to provide reparations to the war victims in Iraq.

General Assembly
From its inception, Presbyterians have seen the U.N. as a peacemaker and urged its support as “...our one hope of peace...” (PCUSA, 1949, p. 245). The 1957 PCUS Assembly urged its members to support the U.N. as an organization “...to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war...” (PCUS, 1957, p. 196). The 1965 UPCUSA General Assembly called the U.N. “...still the best hope for getting out of our intolerably dangerous thermonuclear jungle and for creating the beginnings of a civilized international community...” (UPCUSA, 1965, p. 436).

The 197th General Assembly: Reaffirms the historic support of its predecessor bodies (PCUS and UPCUSA) for the United Nations and its peacekeeping and peacemaking functions, and expresses hope that the coming decades will see [it] strengthened in its capacity to fulfill the purposes and goals for which it was created; . . .(1985 Statement - PC(USA), p. 372)
The 207th General Assembly (1995) of the Presbyterian Church (United StatesA.):
a. Reaffirms the church’s historic support for the United Nations as an instrument of peacemaking and peace building.
b. Rejoices in the contribution the U.N. has made in resolving world conflicts, solving problems that transcend national boundaries, and preparing the foundation for a global community.
h. Calls upon the United States government to (1) renew its commitments to the U.N. as the major international channel for its foreign policy, consistently and with good faith; (1995 Statement - PC(USA), pp. 487-488).
The 208th General Assembly (1996) of the Presbyterian Church (United StatesA.):]
b. reaffirms the support of the Presbyterian Church (USA) for the U.N. and its efforts to prevent war and establish peace and calls upon the United States government to give reinvigorated support and constructive leadership to the U.N. as the chief instrument for dismantling warfare and building peace. (1996 Statement - PC(USA), p. 539.)