U.N. Role in Iraq an Open Question for All

With six months to go until Iraq is to return to self-rule, Washington is caught in a conundrum with the United Nations.

It wants the U.N.’s help with the political transition, but it does not want to cede control of the process before July.

“We certainly want U.N. assistance and U.N. input,” a senior State Department official said last week. “But for us it’s the same old mantra: A U.N. role, not U.N. control.”

Secretary-General Kofi Annan, conflicted about how involved the United Nations should be in Iraq, has invited the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to meet with him and Iraqi Governing Council members in New York on Jan. 19 to clarify the matter.

But the U.S., wary that the talks may become sidetracked or politicized at U.N. headquarters, has not decided whether to participate. Washington’s reluctance also reflects divisions within the Bush administration about how involved the United Nations should be in Iraq -- and when.

Rather than have another talk fest that might spread to the Security Council, several U.S. officials close to the matter say, the three parties should meet in Baghdad or in the region.

“The problems of Iraq are not going to be solved in New York,” said one senior Bush administration official who asked not to be named. “They’re going to be solved inside Iraq. Having another meeting in New York is not going to make Iraq safer. It’s not going to bring democracy to Iraq.”

U.N. officials disagree. The meeting’s location doesn’t matter as much as its substance, they say. And to set in motion a transition that must take place in half a year, it’s important to take the first step soon.

When Annan first proposed the meeting in a holiday call to President Bush, the U.S. leader’s reaction was positive but noncommittal, Annan spokesman Fred Eckhard said. Another conversation with national security advisor Condoleezza Rice gave Annan the impression she would work to make it happen, but a decision has stalled, apparently caught in the maw of conflicting strategies within the administration.

Many in the State Department advocate involving the United Nations -- and, through it, the international community -- in Iraq as soon as possible. Others, especially in the Pentagon, view the U.N. as unfriendly and want to retain full control up until the June hand-over.

To muddy matters, Annan is wrestling with his own dilemma: He doesn’t want to risk his staff to play a marginal role in Iraq. But even if awarded full control of the political transition, he’s not sure he would accept it.

Shaken by two lethal bombings at the U.N.’s Baghdad headquarters, Annan has pulled most international staff out of the country and won’t allow them to return until the violence subsides. Staffers are operating out of Cyprus and Jordan, preparing to make trips into Iraq to advise the Governing Council on holding elections, drafting a constitution or other matters determined by the three parties.

One of the U.N.’s particular strengths in Iraq, U.S. and U.N. officials agree, would be bringing Iraq’s various groups and their leaders into the political process. For instance, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, an influential Shiite Muslim cleric who wants a new government chosen via a general election, has been more willing to talk with the U.N. than with the CPA, led by L. Paul Bremer III.

But most of all, a U.N. presence could add a sense of international legitimacy to a new government after what some countries maintain was an illegitimate war. Officials in the U.N. -- and even in Washington -- wonder whether the new transitional Iraqi government would be seen as a puppet regime if the U.N. does not participate in its creation.

That is why Annan insists that if and when the U.N. returns, it must not be seen as aiding the occupiers, and it must operate independently and on equal footing with the Coalition Provisional Authority. Those demands don’t square with U.S. blueprints.

“Kofi’s position seems to be that of seeking a U.N. authority inside Baghdad that is co-equal with Bremer, and that would shatter all our plans right now,” the senior State Department official said. Rather than give power to the United Nations, the U.S. wants the world body to help it establish the new Iraqi government slated to take power June 30, and to help Iraq to continue to develop after that.

But the U.S. doesn’t have a clear vision of what a post-hand-over Iraq should look like.

“That’s something we’ll be working on for the next six months,” said the senior administration official. “We can’t at this point make a decision on all the details of what the U.N. will be doing after June 30.”

With all the uncertainty, Governing Council members and U.N. officials are concerned about whether the hand-over can take place on schedule -- and if not, what will happen.

But one U.S. official shepherding the process dismissed those worries.

“That’s the date,” he said. “We’re sticking to it.”

Times staff writer Sonni Efron in Washington contributed to this report.