NEW YORK, 20 January 2004 — It’s crunch time for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who are under pressure from the United States and its Iraqi allies to help rescue plans for forming a new Iraqi government by July.
If Annan agrees to send United Nations political and electoral experts back to Iraq in force, they will need extensive security protection from the United States — and the authority to arrange the political transition without being overruled by US occupation authorities, UN officials and analysts said. Otherwise, the United Nations risks sharing the blame with the United States for a failure in the democratic experiment in Iraq.
If Annan declines to play a significant role, either for security reasons or because he feels the United Nations would not have sufficient authority to carry out its mission, he risks the United Nations being branded, as it was put by President Bush, “irrelevant.’’
“I don’t think Kofi Annan has the luxury of walking away from this ... now that the Bush administration admits that it needs the UN,’’ said Ellen Laipson, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington think tank.
The United Nation’s first attempt to play a role in postwar Iraq ended in tragedy. After major combat was over, the world body sent in a large team of political advisers headed by Annan’s special representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello — but many at the United Nations thought the mission was ill-defined. De Mello and most of his key staff were killed Aug. 20, when a truck bomb struck UN headquarters in Baghdad.
It was a huge blow to Annan and the entire UN Secretariat, losing close personal friends — and some of the world body’s most respected troubleshooters.
Following the bombing, the United Nations withdrew its international staff. Although Annan recently agreed to send a four-person team in under US protection to reassess the security situation, he has hesitated to send staff back to Baghdad without the means to protect them and a mission compelling enough to justify the risk.
“Kofi is angered at himself for letting Sergio go to Baghdad when the conditions weren’t right,’’ said Nancy Soderberg, a former US envoy to the United Nations. “He’s just not going to go back unless he feels the political situation is right.’’
Nevertheless, now that the Bush administration wants the United Nations to play a more prominent political role, US officials say Annan is weighing the consequences of not participating against the continuing security risks.
“They’re very worried about that, but they also realize that this train is leaving the station,’’ a State Department official said. “They have valid security concerns, but the UN also operates in many other places in the world that are dangerous. ... And you can’t play a role if you’re not on the ground.’’
The bombing that killed at least 20 people Sunday at the gates of the US-led occupation authority headquarters demonstrated yet again that security can’t be assured in Iraq. Some observers believe UN officials will be high-priority targets for insurgents, the more so if they are seen as effective in ushering in a democratic government.
Unspoken, at least in public, were such touchy questions as whether the members of the Governing Council are in agreement about the United Nation’s role and whether the United Nations considers the US-appointed council the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people. “When you say the Iraqis want us in there, which Iraqis want us to do what?’’ the UN official said.
Also unclear is whether the White House is willing to cede substantial political authority to the United Nations prior to June 30, when authority is scheduled to be handed back to the Iraqis.
“The burden is really on the US to define a role for the UN, but they’ve never understood that the UN just can’t be their lapdog to go in and do the tiny little parts they define,’’ Soderberg said. “If they want to create a true partner in the UN, the UN has a lot to offer.’’
In some ways, the United Nations is uniquely positioned to broker a face-saving compromise among Sistani, other Iraqi factions and the United States, argues Henri Barkey, a specialist in international relations at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The compromise could involve a pledge to begin preparing for UN-supervised elections that might be held after the US presidential election this year, Barkey said. Under the current US plan, popular elections would not be held until 2005.
“It’s a way out for Sistani,’’ Barkey said. “It’s also a way out for Bremer.’’
