Annan: Part of the Problem, or Its Solution?

When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met Secretary-General Kofi Annan last month at an Egyptian summit on Iraq, the two old friends shook hands. Then Powell handed the U.N. chief a letter.

Iraqi elections are in two months and the United Nations has to send more electoral experts to Iraq right away, the letter said, according to U.S. and U.N. officials. The Americans will arrange the protection they need, so it was time for the world body to act.

The same day, news broke that Annan’s son, Kojo, had lied about how long he had been involved with a Swiss inspection firm that won a lucrative U.N. contract in Iraq.

The events, though apparently coincidental, were a one-two punch. Annan cut his Africa trip short and took the next flight home, just in time to hear calls from Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and a few media outlets for the secretary-general’s resignation.

It was a very bad week for Annan, and supporters worry that the attacks will get worse if investigations into the alleged corruption in the U.N.-run “oil-for-food” program in Iraq result in more allegations.

“It’s payback time for the U.N.,” said a Bush administration official who did not want his name used because he was not authorized to speak on the record. “The bills are coming due for the U.N.’s noncooperation on Iraq, and the oil-for-food scandal is red meat for the U.N.’s critics.”

Annan is caught in a struggle for his future. The secretary-general who wanted his legacy to be the reform of the United Nations may see it become instead presiding over one of the world body’s worst scandals, even though Saddam Hussein was behind the corruption.

The U.N. began the oil-for-food program, through which Iraq sold about $65 billion worth of oil, in 1996 to soften the impact on Iraqis of sanctions meant to keep Hussein’s regime from rearming after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The program improved the welfare of Iraqis, but it also enabled the Iraqi leader to amass more than $10 billion from kickbacks and smuggling. He also allegedly offered bribes to prominent figures around the world, including the U.N. official in charge of the program, to undermine the sanctions.

There are eight investigations of the program, including an independent U.N. inquiry led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. After Volcker makes his first report in January, he will share the 55 internal U.N. audits he possesses with other investigators. His final verdict is due at the end of 2005.

And so in New York and Washington, questions hover: Can Annan position himself as the leader of reform, or will he be perceived as part of the mess that needs to be swept away in a massive housecleaning? And has he hurt himself and the U.N. irrevocably by not opening the world body to greater scrutiny?

Annan and his aides acknowledged that they were slow to confront the allegations, feeding a perception that they were hiding something.

“It’s a godsend the way Annan’s been handling this,” said one U.S. congressional investigator. “It’s simply a gift to his enemies.”

Coleman, the Republican senator, does not accuse Annan of wrongdoing but says the U.N. chief should resign to take responsibility for the oil-for-food program’s failings.

“It is so clear to me that any organization in which the CEO presided over such a massive fraud should step down to allow it to restore its credibility,” said Coleman, who heads the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which is examining the corruption charges.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) are preparing twin bills to tie American funding for the U.N. to the organization’s cooperation with the investigations, withholding increasing amounts of America’s 22% share of the body’s budget until Congress is satisfied.

In an irony of timing, the demands that Annan resign to increase the U.N.’s accountability came as a panel of 16 prominent global figures presented a report that he commissioned a year ago about how to improve the U.N.’s accountability and efficiency. The report calls for improved internal oversight, offers proposals to fight terrorism and weapons proliferation, and suggests a buyout to rid the organization of “deadwood” -- all reforms that congressional leaders have been demanding.

When he presented the report to the U.N.’s 191-member General Assembly on Wednesday, Annan received a standing ovation in an expression of support.

But if he is perceived as an obstacle to the very reforms he commissioned -- and their funding -- that could increase pressure from within the U.N. for him to step down, said a Security Council diplomat.

“Can he continue to serve the United Nations when the most powerful member of the U.N. is not willing to work with him?” said the diplomat, who requested anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.

American conservatives also were infuriated by what they perceived as U.N. officials’ attempts to tip last month’s U.S. elections against President Bush.

In interviews, U.S. officials and members of Congress recited a list of alleged transgressions: In September, Annan called the invasion of Iraq “illegal”; the next month, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency said powerful explosives had disappeared in Iraq under the watch of U.S.-led forces; and two days before the U.S. elections, Annan sent Bush a letter arguing against the eventual attack on the Iraqi city of Fallouja.

To the U.N.’s foes, the oil-for-food allegations are the perfect vehicle in which to pack their accumulated complaints against the world body.

None of the investigations have suggested that Annan took bribes or acted illegally. The most serious complaint against him is that he has blocked congressional investigators’ access to U.N. documents and employees, though he recently agreed to hand over internal documents through Volcker in January and to allow staffers to do informal interviews.

That doesn’t stop politicians such as Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) from demanding that Annan pay a heavy price for the scandal. “The larger question is whether he should be in jail,” Garrett said Monday.

But the attacks have also sparked support from leaders around the world, and every country in the Security Council, save one: Bush has withheld his affirmation of confidence in Annan until the investigations are finished.

The American government’s arm’s-length reaction may have strategic intent, administration officials said. As Powell’s letter made clear, the White House needs the U.N.’s help holding the Iraqi elections scheduled for Jan. 30. Having the criticism come from other quarters provides leverage over the organization and the man the U.S. helped bring to office eight years ago.

Even among those scrutinizing the U.N.’s failings most closely are voices that say Annan should not resign. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who is leading one of the investigations, said problems exposed by the oil-for-food scandal were institutional, not personal, and if anyone had the incentive to change things it would be Annan.