Kofi Annan says Iraq too violent for U.N. role

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said yesterday that the violence and anarchy sweeping Iraq will prevent the world body from re-establishing a major presence in the country anytime in the near future.

Mr. Annan also deplored the kidnapping of civilians in Iraq, many of whom were trying to rebuild the nation, and called for their release.

"I think it's unacceptable that these civilians should be mistreated in the way that they are now. I would want to see all of them released and allowed to go about, return to their countries or go about their business," he said.

Mr. Annan also told reporters in New York that the small U.N. team in Iraq, led by top official Lakhdar Brahimi, had been hampered in advising Iraqis on forming an interim government and planning for elections early next year.

"Given the deteriorating situation and the violence on the ground, even that task has been rather difficult," Mr. Annan said.

"For the foreseeable future, insecurity is going to be a major constraint for us. And so I cannot say right now that I am going to be sending in a large U.N. team," he said.

U.S. officials played down the statement, saying a smaller presence might be all that is needed to accomplish important goals.

"It's not a deal killer," said a U.S. official at the United Nations' headquarters, noting that Mr. Annan had voiced concern about the security situation before. "A lot of work can be done in small teams" in Iraq and outside the country, the official said.

There were "important things being done by the United Nations right now without sending in a big U.N. team," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. He acknowledged that as Iraq moved closer to the January 2005 election deadline, larger U.N. teams would be needed.

But Jonathan Tepperman, senior editor at the policy journal Foreign Affairs, said Mr. Annan's decision was "a political blow to the administration, which is anxious to get the U.N. involved because it would give greater international legitimacy to the mission and help the U.S. share the [financial] burden."