UN Must Dance to Own Tune Over Iraq

The UN is under growing pressure to play a greater role in Iraq, despite the organization's reluctance to assume a high-profile mission that could endanger its personnel.

Ironically, the push is coming from the US, which treated the UN with contempt before the invasion of March 2003.

The Bush administration was prepared to go to war without UN security council approval and was only persuaded to seek its imprimatur - vainly as it turned out - as a sop to Tony Blair.

But, desperate to extricate itself from the Iraq quagmire, the Bush administration has woken up to the fact that the organisation may have a purpose in post-war Iraq - even though it summarily rejected a UN trusteeship for Iraq in the first flush of victory.

The US and Britain have circulated a draft resolution at the UN that would extend the organisation's mandate beyond this year and broaden its role.

Writing in the New York Times last month, the US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, praised the world body.

"As special envoy and ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005," he wrote, "I saw how the United Nations could play an enormously helpful role when represented by talented envoys who are given the right mandate, and when supported by the major powers."

Mr Khalilzad pointed out that the UN "has unmatched convening power that can help Iraq's principal communities" reach agreement on sharing political and economic power.

It also has the legitimacy to talk to all parties "including elements outside the political process". Mr Khalilzad said the organisation is uniquely suited to work out a regional framework to stabilize Iraq.

The recent Iraq commission put together by Britain's Channel 4, also came to the same conclusion, saying that only the UN had the established structures, expertise and international credibility to deliver political progress.

But for the UN, Iraq is the ultimate poisoned chalice. In a report to the security council in June, its secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, said the UN is a major promoter of efforts to build a united, democratic Iraq, but that "the security situation in Iraq remains complex and unpredictable and is a major limiting factor for the United Nations presence and activities in Iraq."

Mr Ban's reluctance to rush in is understandable. In August, 2003, the UN's headquarters was hit by a huge bomb that killed its envoy, the highly-regarded Sergio Vieira de Mello, and 21 others. The UN pulled out its entire staff and since then there have been only a small contingent of about 35 because of Baghdad's precarious security situation.

Despite the high hopes for the UN, the organisation is tainted in the eyes of many Iraqis because of the sanctions that were imposed against Saddam Hussein. Belated efforts were made to mitigate the devastating impact of sanctions on the civilian population, through the corruption-riddled oil-for-food program, but years of hardship are still indelibly associated with the UN.

However, the organisation is an instrument of its members and if its powerful constituents want the organisation to pick up the pieces in Iraq, it will have no choice but to do so. As secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali was reluctant to grapple with Bosnia, but in the end had no choice. Similarly, Mr Ban will have to take on Iraq.

But Mr Ban will have to ensure the UN does not merely dance to America's tune. The UN will have zero credibility in Iraq if it is seen as the Bush administration's tool. Mr Ban will do well to take another close look at the confidential report by the outgoing UN Middle East envoy, Alvaro de Soto.

Mr de Soto said the UN's image of impartiality was badly damaged in its involvement in the so-called Quartet of Middle East negotiations because the US called all the shots. For the UN to be under undue US influence in Iraq would seriously damage its reputation.