UN dilemma: safety vs. mission

The Aug. 19 truck bomb in Baghdad that killed 18 United Nations staff was more than the most lethal attack ever on the world body. It was "our own Sept. 11," say UN officials - an unprecedented terrorist targeting of the UN that shattered any notion that its blue flag of neutrality granted some kind of immunity.

While the United States responded to Sept. 11 with beefed up domestic security and its global "war on terror," the UN finds itself at a difficult turning point, torn between the need to protect personnel and its historic commitment to serve desperate populations.

"Clearly, this is no longer business as usual," says one UN official. "All of a sudden, the idea the UN may be seen as an enemy by a small nihilist, fundamentalist segment of the population is very worrisome. Any major deployment of UN personnel in the future is going to have a big, up-front security component."

In a report released Wednesday, an independent panel appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan sharply criticized the UN for a failure "to comply with its own security regulations," which "would certainly have minimized the vulnerability of staff."

The reverberations are being felt in Iraq, and beyond.

The UN has withdrawn nearly all international staff from Iraq, a blow to a Bush administration that often argues that conditions in the country are improving. While European leaders press for the UN to assume a greater role in Iraq, Mr. Annan - under internal pressure from staff, some of whom are upset that the UN appears complicit with a preemptive US war they opposed - will probably keep his people out until the US relinquishes greater authority to the UN. UN staff won a key concession in the new US-sponsored Security Council resolution last week, as Annan now has the discretion to send his staff back "as circumstances permit."

Meanwhile, the myriad UN agencies - like the UN Development Program, with projects in 166 different countries - are now rethinking the way they conduct operations in the field. The open-door policy may be a thing of the past. So, too, the policy of unarmed guards, as was the case in Iraq.

"In order for us to be effective, people have to feel comfortable coming to us, and a heavily fortified facility may not send that welcoming message," says another UN staffer, who requested anonymity. (Only UN spokespeople and agency chiefs are permitted to speak on the record.) "On the other hand, we have to provide some protection to our staff. How to strike a balance? The UN in a bunker isn't the UN anymore. Without appearing to look like we're overreacting, in countries where the perceived threat is higher, we've sent out alerts to be more vigilant."

UN staff say danger comes with the terrain: Their services are most needed in the world's most wretched regions. But their work has grown more risky.

Neutrality and impartiality are core tenets of the UN Charter. During the first four decades of its existence, the UN was generally invited in to provide humanitarian work, or inserted between warring neighbors to monitor a cease-fire, maintain a truce, or oversee elections. In a sense, the Aug. 19 attack is an exclamation mark on a decade-old trend that began with the end of the cold war, as internal conflicts proliferated and numerous nation-states collapsed.

Page: 1 | 2