While some have already been quick to dismiss the expanded UN role in Iraq as too late in the day – which very much could be the case – it might be worth pondering on what could have led to such a decision as well as whether any positive elements might emerge from this re-energised process.

There is no doubt that US policy was a determining factor behind this decision although it was formally endorsed by the UN Security Council.

On the other hand it also marks a change in US policy since up to a certain stage, some elements in the administration were averse to the idea.

While one cannot forget the fact that this time every year, the UN Security Council has to reapprove a presence of the UN in Iraq, some are even giving credit for this policy shift to the new ambassador in Iraq and the new UN Secretary General himself.

No doubt perceptions are bound to be clouded by the fact that this time four years ago, the UN Mission in Baghdad had been blown up, a number of key players lost their lives, and the mission itself had ended up shutdown.

The UN has since then renewed its presence in Baghdad so much so that they have helped in the humanitarian field and also organised the 2005 elections.

But this time there are expectation for its role to be deeper in the sense that they have been given a mandate for international negotiations to try and find a political reconciliation.

From what I have heard and read about the US ambassador he seems to know the culture of the area better than his predecessors while he has long been arguing for more and better diplomacy as a possible counterpoint to military force.

I cannot also exclude domestic electoral considerations in the sense that Congress is aware of the constraints of tangible results when one relies on military surges only while on the other hand the Republicans should by now have realised that the military option has not and is not working.

For “turf” reasons one can expect the Iraqis themselves to be somewhat nervous at this likely changing of the goal posts.

A former US ambassador recently stated that the US is caught in problems that they have created by pressing so hard for elections and getting this government in place, but it is a government that does not have the resolve and cannot do what has to be done internally to stabilise the situation.

Regardless of the fact that the government in Iraq represents the majority population, others argue that its PM simply cannot deliver.

It will be interesting to see whether the UN will be ready to push strongly for direct talks with the Iranians and even with the Saudis.

I personally think that there must be a stronger focus also on the role of regional players in Iraq.

This is why I tend to repeatedly go back to the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report which I still personally consider to make as much sense as it did when originally launched.

Gulf countries which are normally moderate and pro-US in their views, have been somewhat cynical about this move.

Some of their printed media has even accused the US of simply passing the buck to the UN.

What this decision on a beefed-up UN role does prove is that various action plans of the past have either not worked or else given the desired results.

I say so because it is a historical fact that in the period before the 2003 invasion and in the immediate aftermath, the US had been known to have expressed confidence that it could run the country without UN help. At one stage, there was even open hostility towards the UN from the neo-cons within the US policy decision-making process.

Without singling out the US for criticism although it was obviously the prime mover behind the invasion, if on the other hand the UN can manage to act as a more effective moderator both internally and externally in Iraq, than the US has managed so far, that will already be an important step forward.

To my mind while conflict resolution and tackling humanitarian crises are important, the security aspect in a country like Iraq remains over-riding.

And given the over dependence on private militias like Blackwater and others who are not accountable to anyone and not even bound by the norms of international law, we could have a situation emerge whereby the UN will give its maximum input without addressing key security issues that need looking into.

If on the other hand these private armies could scale their presence down – which I find unlikely in view of the billions of dollars of revenue that they are generating – as a result of the proposed beefed-up UN role, than this could be an added plus to the whole scenario.

The quickest and silliest thing to do right now is to either applaud or condemn outright such a new proposal.

If it will help in its own way in focusing on national reconciliation in an ethnically-splintered nation, that will already be an important step forward.

Only time will tell if our expectations have been set too high or else whether even this will turn out to be a missed opportunity. Something we traditionally refer to as “too little, too late”.

It is nevertheless at once interesting and intriguing that an “occupying force” is now turning to the UN for help when the occupying countries went to war without any Security Council backing.

email: [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the opposition spokesman for foreign affairs and IT