or not: The UN Threat:

IS Secretary of State Colin Powell about to repeat his mistake of last October, when he led the United States into a diplomatic "quagmire" via the United Nations?



With the fall of Saddam Hussein now imminent, there is no dearth of candidates for assuming control of Iraq's destiny. The Arabs, having played a duplicitous role all along, have started making noises about the "special role" that they must play, presumably in propelling a new moustache into power in Baghdad. The French and the Germans, who cuddled the butcher of Baghdad right to the end, are trying to secure a share in a victory that they did all they could to prevent.

The greatest threat to the future of Iraq, however, comes from the United Nations, an organization used most cynically by France and Russia as a means of sabotaging regime change in Baghdad.

Even today, neither France nor Russia is prepared to unequivocally endorse regime change in Iraq not only as a legitimate international undertaking but also as a noble cause. (Germany has done so, albeit with a drawn face.)

Last fall, the Bush administration was dragged into a process that led to the Security Council Resolution 1441, the 17th of its kind to call for Iraq to be divested of its weapons of mass destruction. Helped by his French and Russian friends, Saddam Hussein used 1441, as he had its predecessors, as an opportunity to pursue his cheat-and-retreat games. He managed to prolong his evil rule by five long months - every day of which meant additional ordeals for the people of Iraq.

What Iraq needs, even more than reconstruction, is freedom and democracy. This is precisely what the United Nations, a majority of whose members are undemocratic states, cannot offer.

The U.N.'s record of intervention in countries emerging from conflict is mixed, to say the least:

* In some cases, such as Cambodia, it has tended to endorse and strengthen the status quo, often in the form of autocratic regimes in place.

* In other cases, as in the Balkans, it has preserved a fragile balance of power that excludes meaningful democratic development.

* In various African countries, notably Sierra Leone, the United Nations is used as a cover for the perpetuation of tribal divisions and foreign neo-colonial domination.

* In East Timor, the U.N. has become synonymous with widespread corruption, shady deals and missed opportunities.

But the most glaring example of how U.N. intervention can perpetuate human misery is the program that has been in place for Palestinian refugees for more than half a century. It has turned hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, of three successive generations, into hostages of a criminal policy, backed by Arab dictators, to prevent a peaceful settlement of the conflict with Israel.

The U.N. bureaucracy, accountable to no one in any democratic sense and nurtured on a culture of opacity, would love to seize control of the billions of dollars likely to be poured into Iraq.

During the past decade, the so-called oil-for-food program has linked the United Nations, which has overall supervision, with well-organised Mafia-style groups linked to Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist machine. Something like $50 billion has been disbursed since 1993. And yet the parts of Iraq controlled by Saddam until just a few days ago teetered on the brink of disaster.

The end of Saddam's regime would not necessarily mean the end of his mafia. To let the United Nations run Iraq would mean to perpetuate that mafia in a new form.

There is one more reason why the U.N. cannot be entrusted with the future of Iraq: The United Nations is in deep crisis, its exact role in the future still unknown. Will the Security Council remain as it is, that is to say an instrument for protecting despotic regimes?

U.N. intervention in Iraq would put those council members that were resolutely opposed to the liberation of Iraq on par with those that gave their blood for that cause. And that would send a very strange signal to the rest of the world.

All that does not mean that the United Nations should be completely shut out of Iraq. But whatever role it plays must come within a framework determined and ultimately controlled by those who liberated the country.

As a first step, the Security Council should pass a resolution endorsing the liberation of Iraq as a just and timely act to assist a people crushed under tyranny. The same resolution should guarantee Iraq's independence, territorial integrity, national sovereignty and control of its natural resources.

The United Nations could also have a technical role in a genuine program of divesting Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, a task that can be achieved in a matter of months. (More effective weapons inspectors such as Rolfe Ekeus or even Richard Butler should replace Hans Blix and Muhammad el-Baradai.)

Also, the U.N. could play a role in the tribunal that would have to be set up to try Saddam (if he is captured alive) and his gang on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. And U.N.-linked groups such as WHO, UNICEF and UNESCO could also be welcomed to operate within their proper remits.

The U.N.'s role should be legal, technical and generally supportive. But it should not become one of decision-making and leadership. Having been liberated from one inefficient and corrupt regime, Iraq should not be handed over to another simply because it flies the U.N. flag.

Powell should stand firm on that score. Once bitten, he should be twice shy.



Amir Taheri, Iranian author and journalist, is based in Europe.