To explore potential roles for the United Nations in post-war Iraq and beyond, on May 14, 2003, the U.S. Institute of Peace hosted a briefing with a panel of experts on the United Nations and international conflict. Moderated by Richard Kauzlarich, former deputy assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs and director of the Institute's Special Initiative on the Muslim World, the panel included Richard Williamson, U.S. alternative representative to the United Nations for Special political affairs; Edward Luck director of the Center on International Organization at Columbia University; and David Scheffer, senior vice president, UN Association of the USA, and a former Institute senior fellow.

Examining a Productive Role for the United Nations

Discussing his experience in working with UN officials to examine potential options to address the recent upsurge in violence in the Congo, Richard Williamson stated that the United Nations could be a very effective tool in addressing local destabilizing conflicts. However, Williamson cautioned, "Just because it [the United Nations] does some things well doesn't mean it does everything well, and we've seen that in the failure to act in Iraq."

Williamson noted that in President Bush's address to the UN General Assembly in fall 2002, Bush had stressed the importance of the United Nations backing up its words with action. However, even after the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations still could not garner the consensus needed to take decisive action in light of Iraq's continued non-compliance. Pointing out that resolution 1441 had been thoroughly debated and examined before its passage in the UN Security Council, Williamson stressed that its meaning and intent was clear to all. He also stated that the omissions discovered in Iraq's 30-day declaration and the tentative cooperation demonstrated by the Hussein regime with UN weapons inspectors were clear material breaches of the resolution. What does the U.S. experience in attempting to urge the UN Security Council to take subsequent action against Iraq say about the United Nation's effectiveness, Williamson asked?

Looking back on the UN debate on Iraq over the past six months, Williamson suggested that several structural reforms should be considered to strengthen the UN's ability to play a constructive role in future international conflicts:

1. Find ways to lessen the influence that domestic commercial and political considerations play on decisions made by members of the Security Council.
2. Address the reluctance of members to do more than debate and discuss matters about international war and peace, but also take action when needed.
3. Examine how the UN secretary general and the Security Council can work together more effectively on implementing actions by the council.

In closing, Williamson reiterated that the United Nations plays an extremely important role in addressing issues related to humanitarian affairs and internally displaced people around the globe. He also stressed that the Bush administration viewed UN assistance in meeting humanitarian needs in post-conflict Iraq as vital. However, Williamson noted that the United Nations also has its limits and that the United States should engage the international community on how to make it work better. As with many other post-World War II tools, such as the International Monetary Fund, Williamson pointed out, some of the UN's workings needed to be modernized to effectively meet the challenges of the 21st century.

To Intervene or Not to Intervene: Potential Roles for the UN Security Council in Managing Future Conflicts

Have the contentious debates over Iraq over the past six months at the United Nations permanently damaged its effectiveness or relations with the United States? According to UN scholar Edward Luck, the U.S.-UN relationship throughout history has gone through numerous rocky periods and has yet to be completely "written-off" by U.S. policymakers. Although Luck noted that recent polling figures show that confidence in the United Nations by the American public was at perhaps an all-time low, he expressed optimism that this was not a permanent shift in American public opinion.

Building off Williamson's previous comments, Luck stated that he also felt that reform was needed to make the United Nations, and in particular the UN Security Council, more effective. In particular, Luck suggested that four issues be examined:

1. Tools - Recent Security Council debates have demonstrated that many member states are increasingly uncomfortable about using any tools of coercion provided by the UN charter. This has created a political culture where members now view the United Nations as a forum for discussion and negotiation and not enforcement.
2. Power - As showcased in the recent debate over Iraq, a division has developed within the Security Council over whether the council should seek to harness U.S. economic and military power in international security matters or seek to constrain it.
3. Purpose - Recent actions by the United States and others members of the council in places such as Iraq and Kosovo have raised the question of what the council's function is. Should the Security Council simply endorse or acknowledge when the use of force is appropriate or take a more active role in managing international armed interventions?
4. Legitimacy - As also seen in the recent international controversy over the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq, the importance of the UN's "blessing" of actions taken by member states is perceived very differently in the United States than in many other nations. Is international consensus at the United Nations always needed to make actions by member states legitimate?

Finally, Luck stressed that finding answers to the above questions would not be easy and that any reform initiatives undertaken at the United Nations will be difficult. However, he also emphasized that the United Nations has been a very useful tool for U.S. policymakers in the past and that U.S. relations with the United Nations should not be treated as a zero-sum game.

The Liabilities of a U.S. Occupation of Iraq

The day's final presenter, David Scheffer, former U.S. ambassador for war crimes, explored the legal downsides to the administration's approach to the United Nations over post-conflict Iraq. In particular, Scheffer warned that the designation by the UN Security Council of the United States and United Kingdom as occupying powers in post-conflict Iraq may have unintended international legal consequences. In fact, international occupational law, he contended, is governed by numerous international standards and conventions—including the Geneva Convention—that will actually restrict the types of actions that the United States can legally take in rebuilding Iraq.

For example, recent orders given to U.S. troops allowing the use of lethal force to stop potential looters may be in violation of international accords, such as parts of the Geneva Convention, which govern the law enforcement activities of occupying powers. Therefore, Scheffer argued, the United Nations granting status to the U.S.-led coalition as occupying powers, while seeming to provide the coalition with more flexibility, may do the exact opposite. "Occupation law," he noted, "is structured to discourage occupation, not to encourage it."

Looking ahead, Scheffer suggested that the Bush administration consider going back to the UN Security Council to acquire subsequent resolutions providing the U.S.-led coalition with more flexibility in rebuilding Iraq. This not only would provide the United States with rules it is familiar with from working in Kosovo and other areas, but would also provide a continued avenue for the United States to engage the United Nations in a dialogue over questions regarding Iraq's future. This, Scheffer argued, could provide a more flexible international legal and political framework for the United States in its efforts to rebuild Iraq.

This USIPeace Briefing reflects the presentations and comments from "Post-War Iraq and Beyond: The UN's Role"—a Current Issues Briefing held at the U.S. Institute of Peace May 14, 2003. The views summarized above reflect the discussion at the meeting; they do not represent formal positions taken by the Institute, which does not advocate specific policies.

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent international conflicts, promote post-conflict stability and development, and increase conflict management capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by directly engaging in peacebuilding efforts around the globe.