U.N. Security Council Seeks New Role in Aftermath of Iraq War by Larry Luxner Stefan Tafrov, Bulgariaís ambassador to the United Nations, felt a wave of intense joy sweep over him while watching television footage of the huge bronze statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled in Baghdad. ìAs a Bulgarian, I was delighted that a dictator had fallen. Many Bulgarians could understand very well watching those scenes because weíve been through all that,î he said. ìI personally recalled the moment when a helicopter removed the red star from atop the tallest building in Bulgaria.î Those sentiments have much to do with why the small Eastern European country consistently supported the United States in its bid to oust Saddamóeven without official backing from the 15-member U.N. Security Council. ìWe have always been clear in what we stood for,î Tafrov told The Washington Diplomat in an interview at the U.N. headquarters in New York. ìWe wanted the previous Security Council resolutions implemented because weíre concerned with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As long as those weapons are held by brutal dictatorships, the world is not a safe place. We emerged from 45 years of communism, so we know what it means to be under a dictatorship.î In the aftermath of the latest Gulf War, the U.N. Security Council is struggling to make itself relevantóespecially in the face of criticism that countries such as France, Germany and even Mexico shirked their responsibilities by opposing U.S. and British plans to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam by force. U.N. Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser of Mexico, who holds the Security Councilís rotating presidency for April, said ìthereís no doubtî in his mind that the world body is still very much relevant. ìThe Security Council has a fundamental role to play in the reconstruction of Iraq. Why? Because the U.N. has the institutional capacity, experience and tools necessary to pursue, first and foremost, the fundamental rights of the Iraqi people,î said Aguilar. ìThe U.N. has an agenda of principals and norms of international law that are essential for guaranteeing the well being of the Iraqi people,î the Mexican diplomat added. ìFor the past 10 years, the Security Council has already had a role to play in five areas: humanitarian aid, administration of oil revenues for the oil-for-food program, the sanctions regime itself, inspections to determine whether Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and is complying with the mandate to get rid of them, and the future role, if any, of observer missions along the border between Iraq and Kuwait.î President Bush is pushing the Security Council to lift sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and subsequent 1991 Persian Gulf War. The council is already studying that issue, as well as the U.N. oil-for-food program, under which Baghdad was allowed to use a portion of its petroleum revenues to buy food and other humanitarian supplies. Asked if Mexico was worried that its reluctance to support the U.S.-led war on Iraq could cause problems with the Bush administration on immigration and other issues, Aguilar said, ìMexico does not approach this thing from the perspective of having repercussions because we participate in global affairs through the United Nations. This is a fundamental dimension of our foreign policy.î The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are China, France, Great Britain, Russia and the United States. The other 10 members, elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms, are Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Germany, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan, Spain and Syria. Several observers have suggested that poorer countries sided with the United States on the Iraq issue out of fear of losing badly needed U.S. economic assistance. According to an Inter Press Service article, the African nation of Guinea received $3 million in outright U.S. military grants last year and is expected to get $20.7 million in development assistance this year. Cameroon is not only entitled to receive free surplus U.S. weapons but also gets $2.5 million in annual grants for military education and training. And Bulgaria has received a total of $69 million in aid under a U.S. program called Support for East European Democracy (SEED). Next yearís proposed grant is $28 million. Yet Tafrov said his country backed the United States out of conviction, not greed. ìWe have always stood for firm action,î the Bulgarian diplomat said. ìWe are of the firm view that the Security Council is credible only when itís united, which was the case with Resolution 1441. It was a major achievement of the council, and what happened afterward cannot cancel the positive impact of 1441. The fact is that Saddam Hussein was refusing to cooperate until the last moment. That regime didnít see the opportunity that was offered to him by the Security Council for a peaceful solution. He never cooperated.î Tafrov added that in the past, Bulgaria had a ìvery substantial relationship with Iraqî and can contribute both economically and politically to the countryís reconstructionóbut always within the framework of the United Nations. ìBulgariaís view is that the U.N. is at the center of whatever happens,î he said. ìBulgaria is genuinely and deeply attached to multilateralism. We are firmly for a central role for the U.N. in postwar Iraq, and it wouldnít be of interest to anybody to see the authority of the council weakened. We are working to prevent that.î Tafrov added, ìItís not the business of the Security Council to change regimes. For us, democracy is always the best form of government, and the linkage between democracy and peace is obvious.î Yet one country, Pakistan, wasnít happy with the U.S. decision to go it alone in Iraq. ìIt was our position the implementation [of Resolution 1441] should have been achieved in a peaceful way through the inspections process, and that adequate time should have been provided for the process to realize the elimination of Iraqís weapons of mass destruction,î said Munir Akram, Pakistanís ambassador to the United Nations. ìTherefore, we regretted the breakdown of the process and the use of force.î Akram continued, ìThe outcome of a war between the U.S. and Iraq was never in doubt. The only question was how quickly it could be achieved and at what cost. Every conflict creates human suffering, especially since the Iraqi people were already at a disadvantage, having remained under sanctions for the last 12 years.î The Pakistani diplomat said that whatís important now is getting Iraq back on its feet, politically and economically. ìOur approach is practical and pragmatic. We are interested in the welfare and the well being of the Iraqi people, because they are a Muslim nation. Secondly, we live adjacent to the gulf, and the regionís peace and stability is essential for Pakistan,î he said. ìThe fact that force was used without Security Council approval was obviously a point on which many countries took issue, for both legal and political reasons. ìFor sanctions to be eliminated, weíll need a certificate from U.N. inspectors that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction. We also have approved the oil-for-food program for 45 days, and it will expire on June 3. Unless that happens, the sanctions canít be lifted and the sale of Iraqi oil by anybody else will be illegal.î But Pakistan has another reason in seeing that U.N. resolutions are carried out. ìWe start from the premise that the resolutions of the Security Council should be observed and implemented,î Akram said. ìItís a basic stand which derives from our consistent call for U.N. resolutions relating to Jammu and Kashmir.î Resolution 47, adopted back in 1948, calls on the Kashmiri people to hold a referendum to decide whether they want their mountainous territory to be part of India or Pakistan. If resolutions concerning Iraq are ignored, then the world might ignore resolutions concerning Pakistan, which, with 130 million people, is one of the worldís most populous Muslim countries. ìPakistan has been pressing privately and publicly for council members to be responsive to the outstanding resolution, which calls for a plebiscite under U.N. auspices to be held, so the Kashmiri people can express their wishes,î said Akram. ìWe expect the Kashmiris would be favorable to Pakistan rather than to India. Thatís precisely why India does not want to hold it.î The festering issue has led to an arms race between the two countries, both of which are now believed to possess nuclear capability. The Pakistani ambassador claims that India has boosted its defense budget by 25 percent a year over the la st four years, going on a ìbuying spreeî while his own countryís budget in real terms has remained frozen. ìIt is in the interests of all concerned, even the most powerful states, to work within whatís perceived to be international legality,î said Akram, ìand that framework can only be provided by the U.N. Security Council.î Larry Luxner is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.