LONDON, 23 July 2004 — Sergio Vieira de Mello, the United Nations’ envoy who was killed by terrorists in Baghdad almost a year ago was no cynic. But he recognized cynicism where he saw it. It was in that spirit that, soon before his tragic death, he described attempts at putting the UN at the center of things in Iraq as “a cynical ploy” by powers not prepared to give it a precise mission and the means to implement it.

De Mello was sent to Iraq with instructions to steer as clear of the Americans as possible. He was even ordered to refuse American military protection for himself and his staff. The Americans were “lepers” to be avoided at all cost. So when the terrorists arrived to destroy the UN building and kill De Mello and dozens of his staff, there was no one to stop the tragedy.

A year later the lessons of De Mello’s fate have not been learned. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has named a new envoy to Baghdad. He is Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, an experienced diplomat and Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington. Once again, however, the UN insists on going to Iraq not as a partner of the US-led coalition and the newly installed interim Iraqi government but as what would amount to an official opposition to both. It would be criminal to send Qazi and his staff to Baghdad where, deprived of adequate protection, they would be easy targets for the terrorists.

For the UN to treat the US-led coalition as “lepers” is bad politics to say the least. The US and its 33 coalition partners account for some 80 percent of the UN’s total budget. The coalition is made up of nations from all continents, including two of the five veto-holding members of the Security Council. It is no shame for the UN to have its mission protected by 34 of its own members that are already present in Iraq.

And yet the UN bureaucracy insists that no one associated with the Americans should have a role in protecting its Iraq mission.

It was to avoid the American “lepers” that the Security Council voted seven weeks ago to create a special international force to protect its mission in Iraq. So far, however, not a single country has offered to join. The Russians, the French, and the Germans who had most opposed the use of US troops for the purpose, are not even prepared to contribute money for such a force. Worse still they are exerting diplomatic pressure on other countries not to offer troops.

What does all this mean? Annan’s office speaks of “difficulties to be sorted out.”

That is not good enough. What we have here is an attempt at sabotaging Iraq’s progress toward free elections. The UN’s mission in Iraq is to help convene a national conference this summer and pave the way for elections by next January at the latest. The clock is ticking and, with a maximum of 24 weeks to achieve its goals, the UN mission cannot afford to waste a day.

Those who are delaying the start of the UN mission’s work surely know that the most effective means of defeating the terrorists and stabilizing Iraq is the creation of a government chosen by the people in free and fair elections. The creation of such a government is also the shortest route to ending the military presence of the US-led coalition in Iraq.

Thus those who are trying to sabotage the holding of elections are helping to prolong both the terrorist campaign and the American military presence in Iraq.

According to estimates by UN experts Ambassador Qazi’s mission would need a protection force of 4,000 men.

Is it too much to ask that Russia, Germany, France, and China, who do not want the Americans and their allies around, to offer 1,000 men each?

And would it not be nice if Spain’s new Premier Jose Luis Zapatero proposed to send back his country’s recently repatriated 1,200 troops to Iraq, this time as members of the UN protection force?

Several Arab countries have offered to join the proposed force. The Iraqis, however, do not want Arab troops on their soil. Ambassador Qazi’s own country, Pakistan, is also offering troops. There are reports that President Pervez Musharraf is even prepared to provide all the 4,000 men needed.

The problem is that Pakistan cannot finance such an operation while Russia, China, Germany and France refuse to foot even part of the bill. The European Union, for its part, has been sending conflicting signals to Pakistan. At the same time those who refuse to pay also insist that the proposed force should not be financed by the Americans either. As a French spokesman put it the other day the proposed force should not be seen as “a US-financed show.”

All this leads us to a crucial question: Does Iraq need the complications caused by the dirty power politics played at the UN?

Most Iraqis do not want the UN. For them the UN is associated with 13 years of sanctions that wrecked their lives while enriching Saddam Hussein and his Tarkiti Mafia. Almost daily revelations about the extent of the corruption generated by the UN-controlled oil-for-food-program add to the mistrust of the Iraqi people.

A discredited UN has no legitimacy to bestow on anybody in Iraq. The only way for the UN to remake its image in Iraq is to welcome the liberation of that country as a positive event, and to distant itself from circles that suffer from nostalgia for Saddam’s despotic regime.

When all is said and done the US-led coalition bears primary responsibility for seeing Iraq through its transition from dictatorship to democracy. President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair and their allies have said that they will stay the course and do what it takes to help Iraq build a new and better life. They cannot renege on that pledge in the name of multilateralism and international consensus. The Byzantine games played by the opponents of the liberation do not absolve the US and its allies of their responsibility.

So far the US-led coalition and the new Iraqi leadership have met all the deadlines they have fixed for themselves. A draft constitution was published at the time promised and the handover of power to an interim government completed on schedule. There is no reason why UN maneuverings should upset the established timetable for holding elections.

The interim Iraqi government should stick to the timetable and hold elections with or without the UN. Those who still regret Iraq’s liberation may well hoot and jeer at such elections as they have done at whatever measure that has been taken by the US-led coalition and its Iraqi allies so far. What matters, however, is what the Iraqi people think, and that can only be ascertained through elections.