Commentary: Interview: ESCWA chief Mirvat Tellawy

BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 10 (UPI) -- The United States is now less opposed to a United Nations presence in Iraq because it realizes that conditions in the war-torn country are difficult, says a senior Arab official of the world body.

But the Americans would not allow the U.N. or any other party to take part in reshaping Iraq's political future, says Mervat Tellawy, who heads the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia.

Adaptive intelligence for a serious advantage: business, investment and technology- BizVantage!
Try the free, no-hassle 6 month trial!

ESCWA is the main U.N. development forum for the West Asian region responsible for economic and social improvement in the area.

In an interview with United Press International, Tellawy described the U.S. occupation of Iraq as "a unique situation even in political history" because a country which gained independence 70 years ago "went back to be under occupation again." The interview was conducted in Arabic and translated into English.

Tellawy said the U.N.'s failure to prevent the United States and Britain from launching the war on Iraq does not mean that the international organization has failed in its mission.

The U.N., she said, could help rehabilitate and rebuild Iraq, noting that a number of U.N. agencies were already on the ground to secure medical and other humanitarian assistance.

But she said she does not see the United Nations playing any role in reshaping Iraq's political future. "This is a particularly sensitive point," the United States will not like to share this role with the U.N. or any other party, she said.

"I don't think they will be lenient or flexible" on this issue, she added.

Asked about the impact of Iraq's occupation on the Arab region, Tellawy said, "the fall of Iraq means the fall of an important part of the Arab nation" and has "very dangerous political implications for Arab unity and Arab national security."

ESCWA was formed in 1973 and is made up of Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt and Yemen. It is the smallest of five regional commissions of the U.N.

It was based in Iraq from 1982 to 1991 but moved out after the first Gulf War. In October 1997, ESCWA moved its headquarters back to Beirut.

Q: The United Nations, like Arab and other nations, has failed from preventing the U.S. war on Iraq. What role can the U.N. play now with the U.S. forces controlling the country?

Tellawy: The U.N. could not stop the war but this does not mean it has failed in its mission. The political negotiations between the U.N. and members of the Security Council did not reach the level of where they could convince the concerned parties to stop the war. That's why most of the 15 UNSC members were on one side and two countries (the United States and Britain) were on the other side and determined (to go ahead with the war). I don't find excuses for the U.N. but it couldn't do anything to stop the United States and Britain from launching the war. It cannot prevent other countries if they wish in the future to do the same. It has only a political power to remind the countries of their obligations and of their responsibilities toward international law and international agreements. But failing (in stopping the war) does not mean a failure of the U.N. work and role.

The U.N. is also the mirror or reflection of the countries' wishes. It has no army to fight a country that violates the rule.

Q: In the same logic, we are talking about a U.N. role at a time when the United States controls the situation in Iraq but has failed to bring stability. Would the U.S. occupation forces allow the U.N. or others to rebuild Iraq?

Tellawy: In the beginning, the occupation forces did not want any U.N. presence (in post-war Iraq). But when they went there and saw the conditions, they became less opposed to the U.N. presence. At this moment, there are a number of U.N. organizations on the field in Iraq.

The Americans also tried hard to get a (favorable) resolution from the Security Council because they wanted a kind of legitimacy, a kind of cover and international acceptance. They also wanted to please the Europeans.

The last UNSC resolution on Iraq gives the U.N. an important role and calls for the appointment of a representative of the U.N. Secretary-General in Iraq. But when the time for implementation came, there's hesitation in expanding this (U.N.) role. Today, after what they experienced on the ground, they don't oppose such a role.

Q: Is it because of their failure to bring stability and control the situation?

Tellawy: Because the situation's difficult. Perhaps, they did not anticipate it. Since the Iraqis were living under a tyrant, the Americans believed they would be welcomed. When they saw there are difficulties, they thought the U.N. presence in Iraq might benefit them.

Q: Is there a coordination between the United States and the U.N.?

Tellawy: There are two things. There are technical needs which the U.S. forces have no time to handle such as rehabilitating people, bringing experts, rebuilding institutions. This is what the U.N. can do. For example, the UNICEF is providing vaccinations for children while other agencies are helping secure food and water and assisting refugees.

But the political contacts with the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds were monopolized (by the U.S. forces). Today, we see that Sergio de Millo, the new U.N. special representative for Iraq, is meeting some of the Iraqi leaders.

This means that when the Americans saw that a U.N. cover improves their acceptance, they granted it an important role.

Q: What role could the U.N. play in reshaping Iraq's political future?

Tellawy: This is especially a sensitive point. I don't believe that the United States will accept (a political role for the U.N.). Even if there would be a U.N. role, it will be at the level of the U.N. Secretary-General and his representative, of course with limitations.

But I don't think that they will be lenient or flexible on this point. They will not like the United Nations or others to take part (in reshaping Iraq). Maybe an advice or an opinion could be given. Anyway, it's not in U.N. interest to go beyond the limit defined in the Security Council resolution.

Q: Mrs. Tellawy, you are the chief of ESCWA which is made up of 13 Arab countries including Iraq. And Iraq is now occupied. How do you see the situation in Iraq?

Tellawy: Of course, it is a unique situation even in political history. A country which gained its independence 70 years ago, went back to be under occupation again. We haven't studied such a case in international law.

The U.N. or ESCWA are facing a dilemma. Would we stay aloof and say as long as there's occupation, we don't deal with it? We don't approach Iraq or drop it from our account? Or would we accept the reality with the aim of doing something even if it's not everything or much? We should monitor Iraq and even give the occupation forces the best advice to protect the dignity of the Iraqi state and people.

Q: How would a country be rebuilt under occupation? Isn't there a contradiction?

Tellawy: I think there should be reconstruction even under occupation. This is how the state becomes stronger. The civil society should have a role. In Egypt, under the British mandate, the civil society joined hands to oppose the British rejection for building a university there. The first university in Egypt was built in 1908 through the efforts of these people.

Q: What do you intend to do for Iraq?

Tellawy: We see that the civil society should be revived and helped: chambers of commerce, banks, and associations for the elderly, children and women. We want these institutions to play the role normally played by government departments and ministries.

Maybe we will face obstacles. We want to convince them and change their minds.

I believe that as you strengthen the Iraqi society, you (defuse the impact of) the U.S. presence.

The Americans will also appreciate this, especially if it prevents another dictator from taking over. We don't want another dictator.

By quickly rebuilding the Iraqi society, we can also ensure that Iraq is not partitioned.

Q: What's the impact of post-war Iraq on its neighbors?

Tellawy: The fall of Iraq means the fall of an important part of the Arab nation at the political level. This has very dangerous political implications for Arab unity and Arab national security. All that happened in Iraq is not in the interest of the Arab world. Every time there is a foreign presence on an Arab land, which isolates this or that Arab country from the rest of the group, it is not in the interest of the Arab region.

The second thing is the economic impact. Even under the U.N. oil-for-food program, there were contracts in billions of U.S. dollars between Iraq and Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Syria had an oil pipeline (with Iraq) and Jordan used to take oil from Iraq at very reduced prices. All this used to generate billions of U.S. dollars.

And then there's this mutual investment. Iraqis invested in the Arab world and other Arabs invested in Iraq. Who from among the Arabs would go to invest there now and who from among the Iraqis will come here to invest with such a political situation?

All these obstacles prevent regional integration at a time globalization requires regional integration and open borders.

This is the only region in the world where growth has sharply decreased since the 1970s. Growth was minus and not plus in the past 20 years and this is because of lack of stability, wars and divisions.