LONDON, 18 December 2004 — The Bush administration has distanced itself for the time being from congressional demands for the resignation of the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
But acute US-UN tensions persist over oil-for-food corruption investigations, UN handling of Iran’s nuclear programs, and Iraq’s US-sponsored elections next month. US resentment over what officials regard as lack of UN support for the Iraq polls is barely contained.
The issue topped the agenda in talks Thursday between Annan, the US Secretary of State Colin Powell and his designated successor, Condoleezza Rice.
The US craves the legitimacy and expertise that only the UN can give the process. Because of security concerns, only 19 UN electoral staff are in Iraq, compared with 266 who oversaw Afghanistan’s polls in October. Annan ordered non-Iraqi UN personnel to leave last year after a bomb killed his senior envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and destroyed the UN’s Baghdad headquarters. The UN is planning a limited expansion of advisory and technical operations beyond Baghdad before the Jan. 30 polls.
But it believes staff remain at great risk, and insists the conduct and monitoring of the elections are the responsibility of Iraq’s electoral commission. American critics suspect Annan has political motives. Illogically, they blame him for the Security Council’s refusal to endorse the war. His recent condemnation of the invasion as illegal infuriated neoconservatives.
Allegations arising from Saddam Hussein’s subversion of the defunct UN oil-for-food program have thus become a pretext for demanding Annan’s head. Given an opportunity on Dec. 2 to support Annan, George Bush declined. Instead, the president resurrected an old threat — that US funding, 20 percent of the UN budget, depended “on a good, honest appraisal of that which went on (sic)”. But a week later, after 130 countries voiced support for Annan and the UN General Assembly gave him a standing ovation, the administration backed off. Eating humble pie on his boss’s behalf, Ambassador John Danforth told the UN, “It is important for us, the US, to clarify our position. We are not suggesting or pushing for the resignation ... of the secretary-general. No one has cast doubt on (his) personal integrity. No one. And certainly we don’t.”
Perhaps Danforth protested too much. In any case, this abrupt shift may be more about timing than international opinion. And it followed an embarrassing reminder of past US hypocrisy over Saddam’s regime.
Democratic Senator Carl Levin noted that the White House had contributed “very significantly” to the oil-for-food problems by turning a blind eye to much more lucrative, long-running, illegal oil and trade deals between Saddam and US allies such as Jordan and Turkey.
This may be more stay of execution than reprieve. Annan symbolizes all that the neocons most resent: An international bureaucracy presuming to set limits on US power. Meanwhile, Washington is pressing for Mohamed El-Baradei, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency chief, to stand down. El-Baradei has not been forgiven for being right about Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Now he is accused of being soft on Iran. Last week’s revelations that the US tapped his telephone conversations with Iranian diplomats recalled allegations about US bugging of Annan’s office. If Annan is safe for now, the main reason may be Bush’s purported desire to strengthen his multilateralist credentials.
He is heading for Europe in February where support for the UN is strong. He aims to mend fences, particularly in Germany, and rally NATO support in Iraq.
