Conspiracy of silence?
But the tragedy with the 'rebel group' of Security Council members, three of which are Permanent Members, is that they had stopped there after opposing the US move, but didn't move forward which they were supposed to do in such a situation, to stop a recalcitrant UN member. Thus the aggressor country was given by them a long-rope, through their 'conspiracy of silence'. The result of this 'quartet' policy for the UN had created a bad precedent that any UN member country or group of countries can go unpunished after committing aggression against another member country without UN authorsation.

Now the silence and inaction on the part of the three Permanent Members and Germany after the occupation of Iraq a year ago seems to remain mysterious. Many may question their sincerity, even may go to the length of accusing them of betraying with the people who had earlier praised them for their anti-war posture. Later playing a 'fixed-game' the players displayed their skill in playing well but the final result went in favour of those who had arranged the game. It was indeed fantastic on the part of Bush in buttering France at the recent 60th D-Day Anniversary of WWII Normandy Landing celebration in France, declaring America as the "eternal ally" of France!

Will history repeat itself?
In fact, by providing unqualified support in adopting the US-Britain resolution at the UNSC, these 'rebel' members had not only justified but also legalised the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq -- by going against their own earlier policy, thereby swallowing their humble pie. Perhaps they have also dealt thereby a body-blow to the UN itself, reducing it to the pathetic position of the League of Nations, established following the WWI in 1918. The then big powers literally turned it into an 'European Club' to serve their selfish interests. As a result, the league in thirties was "already doomed because its constituent members had neither the will nor the power to keep it alive," to quote renowned historian H G Wells. Will history then repeat itself? This is the most burning question that is now haunting the peace-loving peoples of the world. The most simple questions is how and what for yesterday's 'rebel' Security Council members which had opposed so strongly the US move to attack Iraq, could overnight make a U-turn to support the US-Britain latest resolution to help the occupying powers, without asking their immediate withdrawal from the Iraqi soil?

What happen then to the UN peace-keeping forces? Will they then work side by side with the US-led forces? Does it not tantamount to justify and legitimise the US-led invasion of Iraq in retrospect? Will UN explain this ambiguous stand to remove the misgivings from the minds of the people?

UN charter on aggression
Now let us have a close look at the UN charter, and the role of the UN Secretary-General. The charter provides ample authority to the UN to adopt proper measures, both preventive and punitive, to prevent an aggressor from invading another member country, as they did in 1990 against Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi occupation by UN authorised military action. But in the case of US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq on totally false pleas, the same Security Council seemed to have gone into deep slumber after just forcing US to withdraw its resolution from getting UN endorsement for its invasion, without further follow-up on its part against US-Britain unilateral action. Had the Security Council, particularly the four members, France, Russia, China and Germany, immediately followed up with action as authorised by the relevant Charter Articles, namely, 39, 41 and 42, then the worst scenes of post-war Iraq, witnessed by the world with horror, could have been easily avoided. And America too could have saved its face from the worst humiliation that it has been suffering from May last when Bush declared the end of the major combat. Today, America stands practically isolated not only from the Islamic world but from the whole world because of its own political follies and sins.

Inaction raises many questions
Moreover, long before the formal invasion of Iraq, the Anglo-American forces carried on their frequent joint air attacks in the north and south of Iraq where America, not UN, had created two "no fly zones" immediately after the defeat of Iraqi Army in Kuwait and Iraq's withdrawal of forces to its territory. Unfortunately Sec Gen Kofi Annan also kept silent and failed to bring it to the attention of the Security Council, under Article 99, when the then Iraqi Foreign Minister wrote to him to stop the off and on US British air attacks on innocent Iraqi people. Such inaction on the part of the Security Council and the Secretary General raises many questions than answered.

"Uniting for peace" resolution
However, there was another option before the UN in case the Security Council faced stalemate or became ineffective due to veto by America or Britain. Under such circumstances an alternative available in the UN General Assembly Resolution, known as "Uniting for Peace" resolution, adopted in 1950, authorises the GA (General Assembly) to take suitable action against an aggressor country, in case of 'lack of unanimity among the permanent members of the UNSC to act when it appears to be "a threat to peace, or breach of peace or act of aggression." In such a situation, the General Assembly is "empowered" by the 1950 resolution "to consider the matter immediately" in order to make recommendations to the member states for "collective measures," including the use of armed forces, when necessary, to maintain peace and security. But unfortunately for some reason or other, there was no move from any quarter to invoke this vital resolution to refrain US-led forces from invading and occupying Iraq.

However, there is a good sign in Kofi Annan's recent criticism of latest US move to get another exemption for US armed forces from prosecution by ICC (International Criminal Court).

However, the involvement of the UN in he unanimous adoption of the US-Britain sponsored resolution on transfer of sovereignty to the interim government of Iraq, and the deputing by the Sec-Gen a special envoy to Iraq to assist in the process of selecting member of the interim government, would have been meaningful, if it had ensured complete withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq and transfer of sovereignty in the true sense of the term to the people of Iraq, simultaneously giving UN the role of an over-seer of both political process and the security needs. But what is being done by America is something else. Kofi Annan had to admit later that the Special Envoy Brahimi was not allowed to play the proper role.

UN made scapegoat?
So the new interim government appears to be a lame duck. The government is headed by Allawi, who, according to the New York Times, is a known CIA agent since 1970s. It can, therefore, be well guessed what sort of government it is to run the country after 30June (the so-called hand-over was done two days earlier on 28 June). It has already been rejected by the Iranian government as a US 'proxy' government and the anti-US Shiite cleric Al Sadar has branded it as a "stooge" government. So the four 'rebel' members of the Security Council had unnecessarily made UN put its neck on the line along with the aggressors making it a scapegoat for the political follies committed by the US and Britain.

Now it is for the "peoples of the UN", in whose name the UN charter was made and the world body was established, to come forward and save it from going the League of Nations way. Indeed, UN will be what its member countries make it. Let not any future historian blame the members of the UN that they had "neither the will nor the power to keep it alive," as HG Welles had said about the League of Nation's demise.

AMM Shahabuddin is a retired UN official.