We're sorry, but the page you were seeking does not exist. It may have been moved or expired. Perhaps our search engine can help.
The United Nations set up an office in Baghdad soon after the U.S.-led coalition ousted Saddam Hussein. It was the right move, given the international concern over the Bush administration's go-it-nearly-alone attitude. But that was the United Nations under Secretary-General Kofi Annan, which was cautious to a fault when it came to taking definitive actions. It was facing the unraveling of scandals ranging from sexual assaults by U.N. peacekeepers to the deal-making with Saddam's henchmen in the U.N. oil-for-food program. And it was under constant attack from the Bush White House.
Sound off on the important issues at
So it was hardly surprising that the weakened organization shuttered its Baghdad operations after insurgents killed several employees, including a popular and effective envoy, Sergio Viera de Mello, in two attacks during 2003. It has run a skeleton staff since then, but the U.N. Security Council voted last week to expand the agency's presence. The fact that sectarian and insurgent violence remains a daily occurrence in Iraq - despite President Bush's troop surge - is evidence that post-war Iraq has needed a stronger U.N. hand all along.
U.N.-bashers should give the current secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, a chance to help war-weary Iraq. He clearly has shown a willingness to do what the United Nations was created to do: intervene where diplomacy is desperately needed. Iraq is a tall order - arguably the tallest on the globe at the moment. But it's where a resurgent United Nations ought to be.