Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines

IRAQ: U.N. Chief Defends U.S.-Ordered Exit

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 24 2003 (IPS) - The U.S. decision to bypass the United Nations in its war against Iraq last week has not only hurt the world body but has also drawn Secretary-General Kofi Annan into a controversy over his pre-war edict ordering U.N. workers to bail out of Baghdad before the bombs fell.

Annan has been criticised on several fronts: first, on the withdrawal of U.N. humanitarian workers from Iraq; second, on the pullout of U.N. peacekeepers from the Iraqi-Kuwait border; and third, on the suspension of the ”oil-for-food” programme.

All of Annan’s actions were virtually endorsed by the 15-member Security Council at a closed-door meeting that ”took note” of his decisions last week, a euphemism for the Council’s concurrence.

But over the weekend, Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed AlDouri said that Annan’s action in withdrawing U.N. humanitarian workers actually cleared the way for the U.S.-led military attack on his country.

Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yasin Ramadan went further, dismissing Annan as a ”colonialist high commissioner”.

On Monday, Annan countered the charges, pointing out that several governments had pulled their diplomatic staff out of Iraq long before the United Nations did, in anticipation of the impending war.

”The U.N. workers were the last to leave (Baghdad),” he told reporters, adding, ”You should recall that the U.N. staff left only on Tuesday, and the war was declared on Wednesday.”

”And we normally remove our staff out of harm’s way. But as I have indicated, they will go back as soon as it is practicable. And we have urgent work to do in Iraq that we would want to go back and do our work,” he added.

But others have also charged that Annan too easily caved in to the U.S. demand to withdraw U.N personnel, including Hans Von Sponeck and Jan Oberg of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research.

In an article available on the Transnational website, the two researchers say that the United States ”recommended” that the arms inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), as well as U.N. humanitarian workers and peacekeepers, leave Iraq before the U.S. bombed Baghdad.

After a short Security Council meeting behind closed doors, Annan informed the world that these missions were ordered to evacuate.

”One member state issued an ultimatum ‘recommendation’, and the United Nations obeys and leaves the Iraqi people behind to be intimidated, humiliated, killed, wounded, and in a few weeks, to starve,” Von Sponeck and Oberg wrote.

They quote article 100 of the U.N. charter, which says that ”in the performance of their duties, the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government”.

The article quotes Professor Paul de Lespinasse of Adrian College in Michigan says: ”We wonder how it was possible for one member state to get the United Nations – and all its immensely important missions – ordered out of the place in a matter of hours? We wonder whether the Secretary-General could not have shown more perseverance in defence of the organisation that is so important for the world and for the people of Iraq.”

Asked to respond to the accusation that he is a ”colonialist high commissioner”, Annan said he can understand the anger, the frustration and the exasperation of Iraqis. ”Their country is at war, and these sort of sentiments and anger is something that is understandable,” he said.

Annan said the Iraqis were particularly unhappy about the suspension of the ”oil-for-food” programme, which was directly implemented by the Iraqi government.

The suspension of the programme, one diplomat said, gives the impression that currently there is no Iraqi government or political authority in Baghdad. But Annan said the United Nations is willing to work with whatever authority is seen to be in charge when hostilities end.

” The United Nations and I have no interest in becoming a high commissioner. And it is ironic that as a former colonial subject, I’ll be accused of being a colonialist,” said Annan, a native of Ghana, a former British colony in West Africa.

The United States, which publicly condemned the United Nations because of its refusal to legitimise the U.S.-led war on Baghdad, has announced plans to come back to the world body to seek U.N. assistance in providing humanitarian aid to a post-war Iraq.

About 60 percent of the 27 million Iraqis have depended on the U.N.’s ”oil-for-food” programme for their daily sustenance, said Annan. ”And this is why the Security Council and myself are determined to do whatever we can to keep that pipeline open,” he added.

Annan said he was discussing ”adjustments” to the programme with Council members, which would give him more leeway to spend the money on urgent humanitarian needs. The entire programme, authorised by the Security Council, has been funded with Iraqi oil revenues disbursed under strict U.N. supervision.

Earlier, Annan was criticised for refusing to undertake a personal diplomatic mission to Baghdad before the war broke out. But U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard told reporters in early March that Annan was working behind the scenes to help resolve the problem. ”What else can he do? He is not a member of the Security Council.”