|
Committee: Special
Political Committee Topic: Iraqi insurgency and Sectarian Violence Author: The Iraqi insurgency developed as a response to the American-led occupation of Iraq in 2003. The establishment of a new Iraqi government has fuelled the resistance of the insurgents. Not only is the insurgency seen as a resistance, it can also be seen as a civil war amongst the different groups in Iraqi, resulting in the sectarian violence. Iraq is predominately a Muslim nation, and within that there are many sects. These sects share many similarities, as well as stark differences. Many of the different sects are involved in the insurgency violence, identifying themselves with a certain “cell”, a term used to describe the different sub-divided groups that comprise the insurgency. There are some main groups that make up the insurgency. These include;
The tactics used by insurgents vary slightly from group to group yet they share similarities. Many groups employ Jihadist elements which include car-bombings, kidnappings, hostage taking and shootings-all with little or no regard towards any possible civilian casualties. Some groups claim to only target the coalition forces, avoiding civilians. The fact is, tens of thousands of civilians have been killed due to Iraqi insurgency violence since 2003. The numbers of insurgent deaths are difficult to determine as many groups do not kept records of deaths, however, it is estimated that insurgent deaths go beyond 50,000. As the occupation continues, the violence grows. In 2003 when the violence began, many of the insurgents were focusing mainly on the coalition and the new interim government. As the years have passed, the insurgents are beginning to broaden their focus to include their dissatisfaction over the lack of humanitarian aid. The civil war conditions are putting a tremendous strain on civilians who are caught in the cross fire of the sectarian violence, depriving them of basic human rights and aid. In an attempt to cease some of the violence, the coalition officially ended their occupation of the government in June of 2004, handing over the government to the Iraqi’s. This did nothing to improve the conditions as many saw it as a façade, and continued their fight against it. In fact, the announcement of the new government fuelled the militants fight, and they began to target civilians in increased attacks through the country. In 2006 sectarian violence increased dramatically when the Shi’ia and Sunni Muslims began to step up their attacks on each other. The previously favoured group bombings were left behind in favour of single shootings and even some day light attacks. The city of Baghdad became divided into two sectarian areas, with each sect defending their territory. Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki made a plan to help end the sectarian violence, however it is not working as planned. Case Study: During the presidency of Saddam Hussein, the Shi’ia Muslims were being persecuted. The following insurgent attacks have, at times, focused on targeting the Shi’ia Muslims. Sunni Muslims are accusing Shi’ia Muslims of human rights abuse and discrimination during their turn in power; there have been reports of Sunni Muslims hostages and detainee’s that have been found in government holdings tortured. This violence has resulted in a mass emigration and internal displacement for the Shi’ias. Some people advocate an independent nation for the Shias of Iraq. There is the idea that Iraq could be split into Kurdistan in the north, Iraq in the center and Basra in the south. The thinking is that if each community is busy nation-building, they would not be attacking each other as they would be within a single country where the communities may be striving for political dominance at expense of other communities instead of working together. British India was split into Hindu-dominant India and Muslim-dominant Pakistan. After a two year trial, Malaysia was split into Malay-dominant Malaysia and Chinese-dominant Singapore. Past UN Action: In March of 2003 the current situation in Iraq was just beginning to unfold. The world-wide fear over Iraq’s accumulation of weapons of mass destruction prompted Tony Blair (former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) to urge the UN to amend the possible 18th resolution so it would contain certain benchmarks that Iraq would have to meet while they were disarming. This was followed a few days later by U.S. President Bush to try to force a resolution out of the UN Security Council that would force Iraq to disarm voluntarily, or be disarmed by force. The UN was not supportive of Bush’s urging and subsequently pulled all of their inspectors out of Iraq. Resolution 1441 was a very important resolution regarding the situation. Another. Resolution passed regarding Iraq in March of 2003 was resolution 1472; a resolution that dealt with bringing humanitarian aid to Iraq. In 2004 the UN made a statement regarding the elections to be held in Iraq. They felt that the direct elections the coalition forces were planning were impractical ahead of the previously planned mid-summer 2004 date. The UN felt that the disarray and disorder in Iraq would impede election results. A resolution was unanimously adopted in favour of withdrawing troops and maintaining the transitional government (Resolution 1546). In 2005 after it was found the U.S. soldiers had tortured and taken indecent pictures of an Iraqi detainee Jean Ziegler, a human rights advocate and a top UN official accused the US and other occupying forces of using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population. November of 200 found the Oil for Food program in Iraq put in place by the UN had been abused by the Indian government. The president had benefited from the humanitarian project. That same month former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made a surprise visit to Iraq urging a conference of the Arab League members to address the pressing issues of security and violence. Two resolutions were passed in 2005 concerning the situation in Iraq. One resolution concerning the situation in Iraq was passed in 2006, and thus far, two have been passed in 2007. Proposed Solutions: The most obvious and supported solution to Iraqi insurgency and sectarian violence is the withdrawal of coalition troops. Many countries feel that the coalition presence is only making the situation worse, and once the people of Iraq are allowed to run their country completely independent of any pressure from the coalition the situation will start to turn around. This issue is being widely debated right now as the Presidential election looms for the U.S. The withdrawal of troops could be performed in any number of ways, deciding which way will prove to be the next big issue if it is decided that the coalition will withdraw. Another common idea is that the guerilla style warfare will not be defeated militarily. Those who believe this feel it must be defeated politically and diplomatically, they point to the past 4 years of terrible conflict as proof that military action is not the answer. Questions a Resolution Must Answer: To what extent should the UN be involved in the insurgency/sectarian violence situation given the previous disregard by the U.S. over occupation? Is a coalition withdrawal the answer? How would a withdrawal take place? Can a solution be met politically/diplomatically? How effective has the occupation been thus far? Should the UN step in and take complete control of the situation? Bloc Positions: Bloc positions vary on the situation of Iraqi insurgency and Sectarian violence. The U.S. is currently committed to keeping their troops in Iraq. They were unhappy with the UN’s response to their demands that Resolution 1441 be changed to reflect the immediate disarmament of Iraq and have since taken matters into their own hands. Officially the government supports the coalition forces and wishes to end the violence through militant occupation. The United Kingdom initially fully supported the U.S. and coalition occupation of Iraq. They even provided a great number of troops. Recently public and political support has decreased significantly. The citizens of the United Kingdom believe that an occupation is not the way to end violence within Iraq. France (and Western Europe) is vehemently opposed to coalition occupation. France took a definite stance when they threatened to use their veto power on any future resolutions permitting military intervention. France is committed to their stance of peace-building within Iraq to put an end to the violence. The U.S. and the U.K initially opposed France’s view. The African Bloc supported inspections but does not have a definite position on the occupation or how to address the violence. The Asian bloc holds a similar position to that of France, and supported increased weapons inspections. Some Questions to Guide Your Research: What is your countries current position on the situation? What solutions are supported by your country? How should the Security Council proceed? What can be done to reduce the violence? Suggested Resources:
|