The Fallujah ceasefire

Now you see it...

US military commanders have postponed a major offensive against Iraqi fighters in the besieged city of Falluja.

Instead, US marines will begin joint patrols with Iraqi security forces under a new plan agreed between US forces and Iraqi negotiators.

- BBC News, Monday, April 26, 12:26 GMT

...now you don't.

US marines and Iraqi insurgents have been engaged in a prolonged fire fight in the city of Falluja despite a new ceasefire agreement at the weekend.

More than 100 Iraqi fighters are said to have attacked a US patrol, killing one marine and injuring eight.

- BBC News, Monday, April 26, 19:21 GMT

Footnote: Another one of those footnotes that are longer than the post they are a footnote to. The second article also notes that

the local council has appealed to the United Nations to investigate allegations of war crimes by American forces.

At a meeting with UN officials in Jordan, members of Falluja's council said American forces had used cluster bombs against civilians there, and their snipers had shot dead non-combatants during the recent truce.

They also called for UN mediation in talks with the Americans aimed at ending the fighting.

Two things here, one being the obvious one of the charge of war crimes, which I will deal with more fully in a future post. I'll just say here that it's about time it was said out loud on the ground in Iraq, by people who can't be immediately dismissed as wild-eyed, US-hating terrorists. The very fact that the charge is made by the people the US forces have been negotiating with in search of a ceasefire in Fallujah should gives their voices some level of credibility in the Western, most importantly the US, media. It probably won't, but it should.

However, what I really wanted to note here is the more subtle point that this is another indication of the willingness of much of Iraq's local civic government to deal through the UN. The UN has a legitimacy in Iraq which the US simply does not and cannot.

Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine the UN being involved in a truly constructive - which would require impartial - way. So far it has served more as cover for US interests than as an independent body. The Security Council won't (because it can't) pass anything the US finds contrary to it's interests and while Kofi Annan could try an end run around the Council by offering the good offices of the Secretariat as a mediator in Iraq, I frankly don't see him doing that. If nothing else, I expect he's going to be rather preoccupied with the emerging claims about scandal and kickbacks in the Iraq oil-for-food program.

Still, better a small chance than none.