While Director General Mohamed El Baradei of IAEA was voicing concern over reports that there had been looting at Iraqi nuclear facilities and asking the United States to confirm the situation, here at United Nations headquarters a change of guard in the restaurant facilities was taking place.

Stories of looting in the main cafeteria and the Delegates Dining Room were denied by the U.N. spokesman at the regular noon briefing, and John M. Gabor, the new executive chef, was at his post early Monday morning to greet his new customers.

Restaurant Associates has been replaced as the catering service by a new company called Aramark. The chef’s table for today was sirloin au poivre with garlic mashed wilted spinach, chuspech onions, and port wine glaze.

Executive Chef Gabor, a 30-year experienced chef with the American Culinary Federation, has received a gold medal for culinary excellence from the American Culinary Institute. He has appeared on the Today Show and Good Morning America and has been featured in the Natural Culinary Review as well as in other media.

Although the menu did not seem to differ from the previous caterer, the presentation appeared more appealing. "The steak au poivre was excellent," said an ambassador, thanking Chef Gabor, who appeared at first to be a little shy, not knowing how to address such dignitaries, although most of the diners today were U.N. staff.

Fresh ground sirloin burgers were served as well as country style southern fried chicken. A sushi station has been added, and flavors of Asia, Latin America, and Northern Africa will be forthcoming. "This is a complete food destination where choices are limitless and change will occur frequently," said Chef Gabor with a smile.

An associate said, "Have you got a sweet tooth? We’ve got mouth watering delectable desserts—chocolate, chocolate, chocolate, freshly baked cookies warm from the oven—everything but sugar plums."

There was a rush to see the delicacies that the new concessionaire Aramark offered. And the prices were good: $8.95 for the steak au poivre and a glass of wine.

There is anticipation that the new U.N. chef will keep his clientele happy. So far so good.

The war with Iraq created an uneasy feeling about the United Nations, and people are questioning the organization’s relevance. The U.S. media continues to present a darker side of this institution, and U.S. President Bush, himself, appears to have relegated the world body to the sidelines, although from time to time the expression "the U.N. has to play a role" is voiced.

Now that the war is over and has become a fait accompli, the U.N. Security Council is still trying to define its role in a post-Iraq-war situation that it did not authorize. The tendency seems more toward accommodation with the "occupying power" than exercising that body’s authority to question.

When the United Nations was created after World War II, it was a reaffirmation of the vanquishers to prevent another war by keeping the leadership of world affairs. The United States, Russia, England, and China took permanent seats and the right of veto in the Security Council, comprised of eleven members at that time. France, although in a difficult position after the war, was invited to join in with the privilege of veto, giving five countries dominance over world affairs. Without the veto power, there is doubt that the United Nations would have been created.

As soon as the affairs of the organization were set into motion, a Cold War erupted, dividing the world into East and West. The question of Berlin, the long march of Mao Tse-tung expelling the troops of Chiang Kai-shek to Taiwan, the Korean Conflict all precipitated events, sometimes putting the organization on the verge of irrelevance. But the veto power at the U.N. always permitted the Big Five to save face.

Although China’s veto power was given to Taiwan for a long time, the affairs of the organization continued to be conducted as usual. In the process, the U.N. discovered a new mission: decolonization. Most of the African and Asian countries under colonial power gained their independence and became members of the U.N., boosting the General Assembly, where the Big Five had no veto power.

From decolonization, the U.N. went to technical assistance with the creation of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and a multitude of other institutions—including specialized agencies—mushrooming the organization to such an extent that the world government that had been projected seemed to have materialized.

The opening session of the General Assembly in New York was the biggest event each year on the calendar, but little by little the Big Five regained control by making the Security Council more powerful and the General Assembly unable to implement its own resolutions. Today, the opening of a General Assembly session is considered a fait divers.

After the dismantling of the Soviet empire, the United States emerged—among the Big Five—as the sole superpower. This situation has created such an imbalance that the U.S. President considered it unnecessary to have U.N. agreement in order to conduct war, disregarding, in fact, the veto power, which had been for a long time the balancing factor. By destroying the power of the right to veto, the U.S. government itself is putting the U.N. in a situation of irrelevance.

The danger is: Are they ready for that—since a multitude of conflicts around the world could emerge at any moment—the Korean situation, the conflict with Iran, the China/Taiwan dispute, India and Pakistan, the Palestine/Israel question. Will the United States be able to control all those situations without a United Nations? In fact, will the United States be able to control Iraq without the United Nations? The answer is: probably not. Therefore, the relevance of the United Nations as a world body is going to be reaffirmed at a time when a lot of people seem to think that the glass house on the East River could have a better use than harboring diplomats from all over the world.

Watching the destruction of Iraq on my television screen, I could not resist returning in memory to the days of my youth when I listened, frightened, to the odyssey of The Arabian Nights—Le Voleur de Baghdad—Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, Scherazade, the Caliph—que sais-je?

The history and artifacts of Mesopotamia, Babylon, and the Wonders of the World—along with centuries of civilization—are disappearing in flames, although an international organization called UNESCO supposedly was created to protect them. I have heard that libraries and museums have all gone up in smoke while we, "the civilized," almost rejoice as we listen to correspondents "embedded" with the occupying power pump us with a minute-by-minute injection of news.

The United Nations, which was created to prevent war, has become so impotent that the Secretary-General found it necessary to send his representative to Washington to discuss his post-Iraq-war role.

Here at U.N. headquarters in New York, diplomats, press, and employees are walking like corpses, not knowing what to do. 

In the meantime, our television screens keep delivering to us the faces of thousands of Ali Babas in the streets of Baghdad, Mozul, Tikrit, Balad, Bayji, and other towns destroying, in the name of the law of revenge, an ancient civilization, a part of us all, while the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein and his companions are still unknown.

United Nations, New York, April 10, 2003 (CNS NEWS)
By Serge Beaulieu
U.N. Bureau Chief

"The game is over, and now we want peace for the people of Iraq," said a nervous Iraqi U.N. Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri to a pack of reporters Wednesday in front of his mission on East 79^th Street in New York City.

Asked if he had heard from Saddam, Aldouri answered, "I have no relationship with Saddam Hussein. I have no communication with Iraq. I am here, I know nothing about what’s going on there."

Early this week, some U.N. reporters were already concerned about Aldouri’s future as news of the war was going badly for his government.

Thursday morning, as he entered the U.N. building, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, was confronted with this question: "Mr. Secretary, why did you call in Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri, and what do you understand his status at the moment to be?"

The Secretary-General replied: "I don’t know what his status is, but I did talk to him on Monday. We reviewed the situation in Baghdad and what was happening. He did not have much information. I don’t where he is or what his status is at the moment, but, naturally, we did talk about what happens depending on the evolution of things on the ground."

The exchange continued as follows:

Q: "Did he ask at that point for asylum or discuss the question of asylum or potential need for protection in any way?

A.: "No, he did not ask for asylum or protection. He had indicated some time earlier that he and his staff sometime felt harassed and followed by local authorities and police—this was some time ago, and I think we had raised it with the authorities and that has stopped. When I saw him on Monday, he did not ask me for help with his status."

Regarding the situation in Iraq itself, Kofi Annan said: "Let me first say that from what we have seen in the reports, it appears there is no functioning government in Iraq at the moment. We also saw the scene of jubilation, but, of course, when you think of the casualties—both military and civilian—the Iraqis have paid a heavy price for this. We have also seen scenes of looting and, obviously, law and order must be a major concern.

Kofi Annan also reaffirmed that The Hague Regulation and the Geneva Convention apply to the Iraqi conflict and that the coalition has a responsibility for the welfare of the people of this area.

On Thursday afternoon Mohammed Aldouri met again with Secretary-General Kofi Annan but the Ambassador declined to comment as he left the building.

As the war in Iraq enters its 20th day, with the capture of Baghdad by the coalition forces and the control of Basra after a 2-week siege by British forces, the role of the United Nations in a post-war Iraq is not clearly defined.

United Kingdom Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said at a Security Council stakeout Tuesday that he envisioned three-party control in post-war Iraq, with the coalition playing the main role, the Iraqi people and United Nations functioning at the humanitarian level. This concept leaves many at U.N. headquarters uneasy, seeing the organization minimized to an administrative level. It appears to be punishment of the Security Council for not authorizing the use of force.

The Arab Group, which has been mandated to call an extraordinary meeting of the General Assembly to discuss the Iraqi question, seems hesitant, although at the U.N. briefing Tuesday reference was made to a letter addressed by this group to the president of the General Assembly. The Security Council president’s spokesman, however, did not acknowledge this letter.

Late Tuesday afternoon a communiqué was issued by the Director-General of UNESCO, Koї hiro Matsuura, deploring the heavy toll paid by the press in Iraq and reminding the belligerents of their obligations to treat journalists as civilians. He recalled Article 79 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention, which states that "journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict should be considered as civilians...On no account must journalists be targeted."

Three journalists were killed in Baghdad today, and another, a Kurd journalist, was killed in northern Iraq. The three in Baghdad were: Reuters news agency cameraman Taras Protsyuk, Spanish television channel Tele 5 cameraman Jose Couso, and Al-Jazeera correspondent Tarek Ayoub.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who was scheduled to leave for Europe Wednesday to attend the European conference in Athens on April 17, has said that he has decided not to travel tomorrow as had been previously announced. 

Early Monday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan took it upon himself to call a meeting with the Security Council to discuss post-conflict Iraq and the U.N. role. When asked to explain, he said: "I wanted to discuss with them the developments on the ground and also to discuss the post-conflict situation in Iraq, regardless of how the war ends. And, of course, we will have to see what the post-conflict environment will be. But the Council has been discussing informally, and I have had Mr. Rafeeuddin Ahmed working as my advisor on this issue of post-conflict Iraq, doing some thinking about it, and he will be available to talk to the Council members as well."

Mr. Ahmed, a national of Pakistan, has been part of the U.N. system and has held the positions of assistant secretary-general, under-secretary general, and chef de cabinet of Kofi Annan.

Asked to explain Ahmed’s role, the Secretary-General’s response was "his role will be—actually, he has been doing it already, thinking about the future, thinking about what is likely to happen and what the likely U.N. role will be, and also to be available to the Council members and all the members involved to exchange ideas and then give me some advice."

Last week, the Secretary-General spent a great deal of time meeting with all the regional groups. When asked how his idea of post-conflict Iraq differed or contrasted or was similar to what the United States Administration plans, his response was; "…obviously there are discussions going on, both in Washington and among member states and, as you can see, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair will be talking again this week. And, there has been a series of discussions where the European Union had come up firmly on the side of greater U.N. involvement. I do expect the U.N. to play an important role, and the U.N. has had good experience in this area of political facilitation leading to the emergence of a new or interim administration. We have done quite a bit of work on reconstruction, working with donor countries and with other U.N. agencies. You have seen the work the U.N. has done in human rights and the area of rule of law, so there are a lot of areas where the U.N. can play a role but, above all, U.N. involvement does bring legitimacy, which is necessary for the country, for the region, and for the people around the world."

Monday afternoon, Kofi Annan’s Spokesman issued the following statement: "The Secretary-General today met with the members of the Security Council to inform them that he had formalized the role of Mr. Rafeeuddin Ahmed by appointing him as his Special Adviser. As he has done over the past two months, Mr. Ahmed will continue to consider possible United Nations roles in post-war Iraq and their legal, political, operational and resource implications.

"The Secretary-General and the members of the Council agreed that any role beyond the coordination of humanitarian activities in Iraq, and other activities mandated by existing resolutions, would first require a new mandate from the Security Council.

"The members of the Security Council welcomed Mr. Ahmed’s appointment and expressed satisfaction at the start of a dialogue with the Secretary-General on a subject which would acquire added urgency in the weeks to come."

United Nations, New York , April 4, 2003 (CNS NEWS)
By Serge Beaulieu
UN Bureau Chief

It is business as usual at U.N. headquarters in New York on Day Sixteen of the coalition war against Iraq .  Very few diplomats in their limousines are entering the main gate that leads to the courtyard, where they usually park.  Staff members, journalists, NGOs are, however, in their posts, ready to show their ID passes to security officers located from the street entrance to various checkpoints inside.  

At the 45^rd Street entrance, visitors in small numbers gather to buy tickets for the regular U.N. tour.  More than ten food stands are serving meals daily, including a main cafeteria, a Delegates’ Dining Room, and a staff café.  From $2.50 to $15.00-- the cheapest and the best in New York--one can choose how you eat gourmet food.  On today’s menu is cheese ravioli for $2.95, chicken Florentine $3.25, baked tilapia $4.80 lamb gyro $6.50, coconut glazed salmon $5.00.  Of course, hamburgers, steaks, hot dogs, a salad bar, and a variety of beverages, including freshly made espresso and cappuccino, are available for a small price.  

In the corridors, TV monitors fixed on CNN were blasting their coverage on the Iraq war, announcing the capture of Saddam’s airport and projecting the end of Saddam Hussein.   Suddenly, someone loudly said: “Al Jazzera, (the Arab TV network) is showing Saddam Hussein in person being cheered in the streets of Baghdad right now.”  Somebody climbed on a chair and switched the channel from CNN national to CNN international and there he was—a smiling, candid Saddam Hussein, against all odds, in the middle of his people, doing his thing.  Automatically, the question that has been persistent over the last few days was asked: “Is it really Saddam Hussein?”  If it is, that is a big public relations coup for his government.  

A few minutes earlier, at a U.N. press briefing, a question was asked if the occupying power forms a government who would be the accepted representative at the U.N., since the United States would normally declare the present ambassador persona non grata.  The spokesman answered that it would be a question for the credential committee to decide.  

At an Arab League conference held recently at the level of foreign ministers, a mandate was given to the group to call for a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly to discuss the situation in Iraq if the Security Council fails to take a decision.  But so far it seems to be just in the discussion stage.  

Whether the government of Saddam Hussein survives the weekend or not, we can soon anticipate seeing diplomats’ limousines filling to capacity the courtyard of the U.N. for an extraordinary session of the General Assembly.   In the meantime, Day 16 is a quiet one at U.N. headquarters, and staff members are anxious to leave for their weekend retreats.  

At the telex booth in the press section, the operator of world.com, Juan Soto, said: “Our telex service with Iraq was cut off a week ago, and no one has been here to send messages there.”  

As American and British coalition forces advance toward Baghdad, Cold War vestiges of the 1950s are reappearing at the United Nations. After the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1991, relations between East and West improved to such an extent that Russia, under Putin, offered the U.S. help to combat terrorism after the 9/11 tragedy. Nuclear weapons were reduced, and an alliance to work toward common security goals was established. But, as the war against Saddam Hussein intensifies, relations appear to be deteriorating, not only with Russia but also with Germany and France.

At the U.N. Security Council, France threatened to use its veto power on a draft resolution calling for the use of force against Iraq. Germany stated openly that it would vote against the resolution, and Russia joined the other two.

The coalition forces, nevertheless, without authorization from the Security Council, moved against Iraq. The war is now described as being in its final stages: the capture of Baghdad and the dismantlement of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. Then what?

Resolution 1472 on humanitarian relief to the people of Iraq was voted unanimously on March 28 by the Security Council, but not without mentioning the provisions of Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (August 12, 1949), regarding responsibilities of an occupying power in ensuring food and medical supplies to the civilian population, in particular, bringing in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles, if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate. 

On April 1, a statement from the Foreign Minister of Russia was circulated at the U.N., in which he reiterated this point and went further to say that Resolution 1472 did not contest the sovereignty of Iraq or its right to determine its own political future and control its own natural resources.

A statement of this nature in the Cold War era would have been the subject of great concern. But, as the only superpower in today’s world, the United States is likely to just take note of it. In the meantime, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made a trip this week to Brussels and Turkey in an attempt to realign former allies by offering to share in the administration of post-war Iraq with the U.N. He indicated, however, that the final voice will rest with the coalition forces who went along and suffered casualties and financial hardship to oust the Saddam Hussein regime.

The Oil-for-Food program, which has more than $2.9 billion in escrow, is busy signing 450 contracts, according to one of their press releases, without specifying with whom.

United Nations, New York, April 1, 2003 (CNS NEWS)
By Serge Beaulieu
U.N. Bureau Chief

A Security Council resolution adopted unanimously on March 28, giving the Secretary-General broad power to amend the oil-for-food program, is being questioned by the Iraqi government.

In a letter dated March 31, and circulated Tuesday at the UN, Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said, "Any discussion of an amendment to the memorandum of understanding and the oil-for-food programme without Iraq’s participation is a blatant violation of Security Council resolution 986 (1995) and brooks no justification whatsoever. The programme was operating with full cooperation between the Government of Iraq and the Secretariat of the United Nations until the Secretariat decided on 17 March 2003 to withdraw the programme’s staff from Iraq on the grounds of fears for the safety of international staff arising from an American-British attack on that country. There is no legal or moral basis for such a pretext."

Kofi Annan presented, also on Tuesday, his 6-page report to the Council on the Iraq/Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM), describing the different phases leading to the withdrawal, on March 17, 2003, of the 1,332 staff members of the mission, while keeping in Kuwait City 12 military officers and 20 essential civilian staff.

In his report, Annan remarked: 

1)"While it is clear that UNIKOM is presently unable to fulfill its mandate as a result of the situation on the ground, its personnel have only been dispersed temporarily, and the timing of their return to their assignment will be decided in consultation with the Council."

2) "Owing to the outbreak of conflict on March 20, 2003, it became necessary to withdraw the majority of UNIKOM personnel, who have returned to their countries of origin or to previous assignments."

A press release dated April 1, 2003, from the Office of the Iraq Programme Oil-for-Food, asks global suppliers to speed humanitarian deliveries for Iraq.  It says: "The adoption of Security Council Resolution 1472 (2003) on 28 March gave authority to the Secretary-General for 45 days to facilitate the delivery and receipt of goods contracted by the Government of Iraq through the Oil-for-Food Programme, which has $10.1 billion worth of goods and supplies in its pipeline. These include food items worth $2.4 billion, water supply and sanitation equipment ($506 million) and health supplies ($374 million). There are $5.8 billion in processed contracts that are unfunded. The Programme has $2.9 billion in uncommitted funds in escrow."

In Bagdad, Iraq’s Information Minister Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf rejected the Council’s resolution that renewed the 7-year old oil-for-food program.