paull wrote:I get the sarcasm, oldeurope.
I'm glad you did!
I read the article. I can't really say much about the idea, but neither would I dismiss it that easily. I've said a couple of times that I would be in favour of a UN peacekeeping mission to Iraq in a situation similar to the current one, but not caused by or an effect of American invasion.
I don't think that a UN peacekeeping mission would be less effective than what the US are currently doing in Iraq. Sure, the United Nations don't have a spotless record. But the US don't have one, either.
Part of the current problem in Iraq is that quite a number of people are opposed to, specifically, an
American presence in the region. In that regard, a UN mission would maybe not be such a bad idea. And using UN troops from Muslim countries maybe wouldn't be such a bad idea, either.
Let me give you an example: in Liberia, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first elected female head of state in Africa, specifically requested
female UN troops (India has been sending a contingent). Under the Charles Taylor regime, systematic rape campaigns under the police and military forces had been a daily event.
Under the transitional government, the police has been disbanded and is now being rebuilt, recruiting exclusively female officers, who are now being trained by UN troops. The result so far is that the population has regained a lot of confidence in an institution that is supposed to guarantee their safety.
The Lebanon would be another example. Both Israelis and the Lebanese had at least some kind of trust in the countries that (reluctantly) committed UN troops to the region. And so far, the ceasefire has lasted.
And that's one of the main problems with Iraq: people don't trust the institutions there. On the one hand, a lot of people hate the Americans. On the other hand, they cannot trust the Iraqi police, the Iraqi Army or any of the militant factions either.
In such a climate, I don't think it's reasonable to
expect something like a democratic process to occur.