Posted on 11/13/2004 12:05:53 PM PST by Ginifer
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 12 - Secretary General Kofi Annan's reluctance to commit staff members to Iraq in large numbers and a series of comments he has made about the war have strained relations with the Bush administration and left many Americans bewildered, according to both supporters and critics of the United Nations.
Mr. Annan withdrew international staff members from Iraq in October 2003 in the wake of attacks on relief workers and the bombing of the United Nations' Baghdad headquarters, which killed 22 people, including the mission chief, Sergio Vieira de Mello. Although the United Nations has been assigned the task of setting up elections scheduled for January, Mr. Annan has declined to send more than a handful of electoral workers to Iraq, citing the lack of security forces to protect them.
"The Iraqis and the Americans are completely frustrated," said a senior American official at the United Nations, reporting views he said he heard in the White House this week. "The secretary general is still recommending many thousands of peacekeepers in Sierra Leone and the Congo, and yet there are seven election workers in Iraq. That tells the whole story."
This official said that warnings were resurfacing at the White House that the United Nations was risking becoming irrelevant and that such comments were now being combined with a dismissive attitude toward Mr. Annan himself.
"We're beyond anger," the official said. "We won re-election, Kofi's term is up in '06 and though we have been asking him to define the U.N. role in Iraq, he is thumbing his nose at us."
William H. Luers, president of the United Nations Association of the United States, acknowledged concern among the organization's backers. "I think a lot of Americans who are very sympathetic to the U.N. are confused with this last phase," he said.
"Most Americans don't really take into account the rule-of-law aspects of international behavior," Mr. Luers said. "We generally think what we do is right and in a certain sense we set the rules. Nonetheless, the world doesn't see it that way, and I think Kofi is talking to that world. I think he almost has to be where he is, but it's a tough time for him among Americans."
In an interview Thursday night at his office overlooking the East River, Mr. Annan said he was distressed by the criticism.
"I have tried to be as helpful as possible, and I have stated at every opportunity that the stabilization of Iraq is everyone's responsibility," Mr. Annan said. "I have argued that regardless of one's position on the war, we must all come together to stabilize Iraq."
At issue are three recent actions by Mr. Annan. In September, he suggested in a BBC interview that the war in Iraq was "illegal." He barred lawyers with the United Nations war crimes tribunal from taking part in training sessions last month for Iraqi judges and prosecutors who will be trying Saddam Hussein and other former Iraqi leaders. And two weeks ago he sent a letter to the United States, British and Iraqi governments warning that a military assault on Falluja could further alienate Iraqis and undermine the elections scheduled for January.
"All of these actions were unhelpful," said Rich Williamson, who was a deputy United States ambassador to the United Nations from 2001 to 2003. "Iraq is a place where the U.N. could show that it can make a valuable and important contribution, but it is just hurting itself in not helping the Iraqi people and sitting on the sidelines."
Further jeopardizing Mr. Annan's image in American eyes are the allegations of corruption and a cover-up in the scandal-ridden oil-for-food program and the intense anger on Capitol Hill at the refusal of the independent investigation headed by Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, to share documents with the various Congressional committees conducting their own inquiries.
Officials in Mr. Annan's office say they fear a return to the mood of the 1980's when the United States, the organization's single biggest donor, reacted to Congressional displeasure with the United Nations by withholding payments.
In the interview, Mr. Annan denied that he was being obstructionist over Iraq, and he contended that the United Nations had been instrumental in selecting the interim Iraqi government and had succeeded in training 6,000 election registrars and opening up hundreds of registration places across the country, despite a low number of United Nations staff members now in Baghdad.
Asked if he was under pressure from countries opposed to the war not to cooperate with the Americans, he replied: "Actually, it's the other way around. I am the one who is always telling governments, including those that did not support the war, that the civilization of Iraq is everyone's business because we cannot have a chaotic Iraq in the middle of that region."
He said he had had little success in persuading any countries to contribute troops to a 4,000-member force called for in a Security Council resolution in June that was intended to protect the United Nations and allow it to increase its presence in Iraq. Asked why countries were resisting, he said, "I think they are concerned about the security situation, and they probably have their own public opinion and parliaments to convince."
He said he was concerned about the damage to the United Nations' reputation caused by the oil-for-food scandal and accusations that he was being passive in reacting to it. But he said his interest in protecting the integrity of the Volcker investigation and his obligation to maintain its independence prevented him from taking any individual action.
As for the requests from Congressional committees for records and documents, he said, "It's a bit like having a case in court in New York, and you have several other courts from other places that want to deal with the same case."
Speaking of his directive preventing United Nations judicial officials from helping to create the Iraqi courts, he noted that there was no Security Council mandate for such assistance and cited the organization's formal opposition to judicial systems that include the death penalty. "As you know," he said, "quite a few members of this organization won't even extradite someone to a country where the death penalty exists."
With the United States pressuring him to increase the United Nations presence in Iraq and with the unions representing the world body's 60,000 employees around the globe demanding that the organization leave Iraq all together, Mr. Annan said he had to find creative ways to maintain a balance. "At least we are there, and many others are not there," he said.
"Without being boastful," he said, "I think that except for these activities of ours, we would not have moved as far as we have, whether it was the establishment of an interim Iraqi government or the preparation for the elections. I think our role has been essential, and not one that is played by an organization that is irrelevant."
We follow US law, derived from the US Constitution, sanctified by the blood of patriots and approved by the consent of the governed. There is NOTHING higher on this planet.
Russia, China, France, Germany & the rest of the EU.
The UN and the Socialist members of the UN are in league with the Arab states to isolate this country. There need for the isolation of the US is to bring us to our economical knees. Why -- to accept the Socialist view course. Most important of which is the destruction of Isreal.
If the US is economically hamstrung they will be able to use the bait and stick method to bring us into line with Socialism and their view of the new world order.
Look at Holland, France and Germany. All three of these economies are in the tank NOW. There socialist programs are driving them into crushing debt. They need bailed out again!
Their ties with the Arabs is another way of guranteeing their success. Oil for Food, Neuclear assistance for Iran. All in the name of security and peace for the world. On the back side is the cooperation between the EU and the Arabs for the Destruction of Isreal. To do this they know that the US has strong ties to Isreal, so the US must be weakened or go down.
The EU is falling apart in their endeavor, Holland is having problems with Muslims and Believe it or not, Patriotic Ducthman !! God Bless them, who want to throw the Arabs Out! Which is exactly what they should do.
The have even been labeled Racist because they want the immigration of the muslims stopped and the deportation of those in the country. This all came ablout because of the Murder of Van Gogh, when he critized the Muslim religion.
The EU has forgot it's history. 48 christians were beheaded in Spain in 850 by Muslims for the same thing.
I like this idea. I am not thrilled with taxpayer money going to the UN which is basically our enemy.
Well, we just can't have the UN passing resolutions against us, can we? It might hurt our feelings!
Excuse my sarcastic tone, but I don't give a rat's ass.
The present cesspool of money-grubbing foriegners should be kicked out of the USA, renamed 'ucgte' or united crooks, grafters, thugs of earth!
I just cannot wait until one of these obstructionist countries asks us for help. I hope "W" takes them to the woodshed before he does what Americans always do -- send help.
I agree 100%.
check.
2. The League of Nations died...the UN should be dead too.
check.
3. Never support the UN again..ever..under any circumstance.
check.
You want a solution to the UN...there it is.
Works for me.
Absolutely. A UN without the US is irrelevant anyway, all modesty aside. It's just a fact, sorry.
Besides I'm sure many nations that value freedom and democracy as does the US would jump ship with us and form the beginings of a new world organization, one with a bit higher standards and responsiveness.
The earth didn't stop rotating when the League of Nations came to an end. And it won't when the U.N. comes to an end.
Words bereft of action are meaningless. See: Sudan, Balkans, Rwanda, Cambodia, etc, etc, etc.
Socialist Old Europe is collapsing. Staying in the UN only prolongs the inevitable.
Yes sir. I'll take Britain, Australia, Poland, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, and the Dutch over the rabble at the UN any day.
Also Germany, and before Beslan, Russia - - the U.S. is
and has been expected to foot a large portion of the UN
bill haven't we? That seems to be about the only input
they like, while leaving them alone to do big corrupt
money deals amongst themselves.
Sure we do. Hussein's government signed a cease-fire which committed him to doing certain things, or he would be removed. The U.N. demanded that Hussein comply or face consequences. He did neither, so the "authorized" hostilities commenced.
Who has label the Dutch racist?
We need a League of Free Nations. Invite China (e.g., Taiwan), Britian, Poland, Italy, Australia, India, Japan, select others that pass a minimum threshold test of democracy and freedom. Evict the UN and give the League that building. Do it before Annan's term expires so he he can retire in shame and humiliation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.