Global Policy Forum

By Giandomenico Picco*

Knowledge comes at a price. The Florentine astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei discovered that Aristotelian physics were flawed, yet the Catholic Church used political means to punish the scientist, accusing him of heresy. According to the church of those days, heresy was synonymous with anti-patriotism.

Knowledge was fought not with knowledge but with dogma. In following events in Iraq during the past months, one can say that more knowledge has been acquired by an ever-larger group of people around the world on the Gulf, the Arab world and Iraq. And, clearly, this knowledge has come at a high price. The situation in Iraq has highlighted two features of the present international system. On one hand the "single superpower dimension" has emerged like never before.

The American decision to go to war was politically and militarily possible because of the sole superpower status the US now enjoys. The level of American military might, from logistics to striking power, from weapons technology to artificial intelligence, has no comparison in any other army around the world. In fact, the gap between the capabilities of the armed forces of the United States and those of other countries continues to increase. The political "doctrine" of the Bush administration is geared toward taking advantage of US military superiority and, indeed, of a worldwide acknowledgment that the US remains the only superpower.

This has been the case especially since the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001. Perhaps the outside world did not fully understand the impact the attacks had on the American public psyche. And yet one cannot properly "read" the US of today without appreciating the effect of Sept. 11 on the country. The sense of vulnerability it generated was unknown to American public opinion and to its political class. On the other hand, recent events in Iraq have underlined the "asymmetry" of our international order. Asymmetry, which essentially means that the small can affect the large, not merely the other way around, has been with us for a long time, but as of late it has become self-evident.

The financial crisis of the late 1990s began in Thailand, before financial markets trembled around the world; the AIDS epidemic was started by a single individual in the early 1980s, yet it soon spread worldwide; environmental disasters have been shown to not stop at political borders, not even those enclosing major powers; and, of course, small groups of terrorists now represent a challenge for a superpower. In Iraq, both these realities -- the "single superpower" factor and asymmetry -- are at play. We are all both stronger and weaker than it may appear.

More specifically, so are the Americans and Iraqis as the post-war situation unfolds. That is why the situation in Iraq represents a major political and operational challenge for the United Nations. Throughout its history, the world body was most successful when the Security Council worked in a unified way and when the UN secretary-general was able to offer the value-added that his special position can provide.

In Iraq today, the secretary-general's role may well be that of guarantor, or at least overseer, of transparency. The process of transferring power and responsibility to the Iraqi people, the management of their oil resources and the allocation of funds that will be pledged at the Madrid conference in October, not to mention the supervision of Iraq's future electoral system, would all benefit from the secretary-general's playing this role.

It would also appear that in Iraq the concern for a just representation of the country's larger groups in any future structure of government is equal to the fear that smaller groups will not see their rights respected. Indeed, the great challenge for Iraqi society will be to balance the just demands of majorities, without depriving the country of the expertise of citizens who may belong to minority groups.

Iraq's history is full of examples of technical and professional expertise being deployed under the severest of circumstances. Can it afford to allow a large part of that expertise to remain untapped?

Another question that must be asked is what role the UN can play in helping Iraqis confront their past. Truth has always been the first casualty of war and a society that has been at war for a long time knows this well. Is there room in Iraq for a truth and reconciliation process as there was in South Africa? Can the UN help in this regard if asked by the Iraqis? Yet another possible UN role would involve addressing Iraq's regional environment.

Before his tragic death, the late UN representative in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, visited Iraq's neighbors, whose role and cooperation in shaping the post-war environment is important and whose co-responsibility for regional security is apparent. It, therefore, makes sense for the UN to encourage a system of confidence-building measures in the region that would encompass economic, environmental, legal and security issues that would benefit the Iraqi people as well as those of the region.

The idea is not new. Well over a decade ago there were those who spoke of a Helsinki Conference for the Gulf, in reference to the Helsinki process initiated in Europe in the early 1970s between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries. It would surely be easier to maintain a secure Iraq within a more secure region. Here, the role of the permanent members of the UN Security Council and regional states would be crucial.

The new Security Council resolution currently being discussed may well provide a larger UN role in Iraq. The world body will not only have to implement a new mandate, but also energize a staff badly affected by the senseless murder of their colleagues. It will also have to communicate to Iraqis that there still exist in this world individuals concerned about their fellow human beings, regardless of politics, ideology or religion.

This is much more than those who killed Sergio de Mello would appreciate. Lacking in positive values to affirm their identities, they seem to need an enemy to define who they are. Rather than being an astute political figure, Sergio's successor should be one who is perceived as a harbinger of the belief that diversity is not a threat, but an element of betterment and growth. He must embody the view that those who are different from us are not our enemies, and that, indeed, we are each other's keepers. The successor should, first, be of high moral character and only second a connoisseur of international affairs. What if he or she were a Nobel Peace Prize winner or some similar hero of our time? The Iraqi people deserve no less.

*Giandomenico Picco, a former United Nations official, headed the UN team that negotiated an end to the Iran-Iraq war and was a hostage negotiator in Lebanon. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.