UN still reluctant to send officials back to Iraq

US and British ambassadors sounded out UN Secretary General Kofi Annan before a crucial Jan. 19 meeting on the future role of the United Nations in Iraq. But many UN officials are wary of seeing the United Nations back in Baghdad while the US occupation is in force.

"Security is of course one the principle concerns of the United Nations," said U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte after talks with Annan and British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry.

Tap Here to Add The Daily Star As A Trusted Source

One proposal, participants said, was to have the multinational force in Iraq break off a contingent to protect UN staff. But no decisions were made at the session that included senior UN security officials.

"The situation on the ground remains insecure. so the scope for a UN role is very much limited by the security factor. That's a fact of life," UN spokesman Fred Eckhard said.

Annan withdrew international staff in October after two bombing attacks on its Iraq headquarters, the one on Aug. 19 costing the lives of 22 staff and visitors.

Since then Annan has emphasized he would not send them back unless security improved -- and unless the UN's political role was well-defined in contributing to the country's future.

The United States has devised a schedule that would transfer governing power to an Iraqi provisional authority by June 30, a procedure known as "phase 1."

In "phase 2" the Iraqis would write a constitution and hold general elections by the end of 2005.

Negroponte acknowledged that the United Nations still had a problem fielding staff quickly before June by saying that "I think that on phase 2 there isn't any doubt that the United Nations is prepared to play a robust role if it is asked to do so by the Iraqis."