United Nations Installs David Shearer as Iraq Envoy, A Way Forward in Baghdad?

Following up on the United Nations' expanded role in Iraq (see earlier Inquirer report), UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appointed New Zealander David Shearer as his deputy envoy to the torn nation. Shearer relieves Jean-Marie Fakhouri who was a Deputy Special Representative working on humanitarian, reconstruction and development. Shearer takes on that load, and additionally, he will serve as the UN Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator.

Shearer had been working in Jerusalem and Lebanon for the last three years and has also led humanitarian operations in Albania, Rwanda and Liberia. In Lebanon, while he had to deal with Hezbollah, as to how he conducted his operations, he said, "We are trying  to work as much as we can through local government, particularly the municipalities, which are very close to the people. On occasion, we have worked with particularly effective local non-governmental organizations. We find the better way to reach the people is by working with the established authorities."

Only, in Shearer's new role in Iraq, anything resembling an established authority is fleeting. How will the UN move forward in Baghdad?

In a BBC report that compiles the mixed feelings over the UN's role, they report that, "The number of staff will only increase from 65 to 95 - a small but very symbolic step for the world body." While the US has been urging an increased UN role, but the obvious criticism surfaces quickly: George II's administration harps with a hollow voice after it shunned the international organization during the 2003 invasion.

Meanwhile, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to the UN that helped to engineer the expanded UN role and, himself being a radical departure from his predecessor John Bolton, is shaping the discussion by highlighting the internationalism of the endeavor. Khalilzad's words from the BBC: "We in the international community have had our differences in regards to Iraq, but despite these differences I believe we all share our vision for Iraq's future."

Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Johanna Mendelson Forman assesses the US's embracing of the UN as a possible sea change of US foreign policy: "It sends a signal to the world that the US is ready to engage and work with friends and allies – and also with its adversaries – to find a way to manage the crisis in Iraq and the region. The unanimous vote demonstrated a consensus by UN member states that only through a diplomatic engagement would the security that Iraqis long for be realized. It also underscored the skills of Khalilzad to bring back the members of the council to a point where they were willing to revisit a UN role. Is multilateralism making a comeback?"

Shocking that the US would reach out to the UN not only at a moment in a disastrous war, but also as the humanitarian crisis in Iraq grows to be one of the foremost on the planet? Perhaps this speaks directly to the heart of the matter.

Recently, just-retired British Permanent Representative to the UN Emyr Jones Parry suggested that the UN will bring a much-needed "impartial presence," responsible for what might conveniently be called the three R's: reconciliation, regional involvement and refugees.

It seems he's most certainly right, only, no matter if the staff were amped from 65 to 95 or to 950, does the mix of conflict, disaster and will for war between the Tigris and Euphrates today lend itself to even the finest political instrumentation of the UN?

Comments

[generic viagra]

good blog, this topic is really interesting, thanks for sharing, my contribution here.
http://www.xlpharmacy.com/viagra/generic.php
http://www.safemeds.com/viagra/generic.html
Ruth R. Felder
478 Sugar Camp Road
Austin, MN 55 912

[costa rica investments]

Keep telling the truth; show pictures; make them see the truth of the ugliness of war; this war, all wars.