LONDON: The Bush administration has distanced itself for the time being from congressional demands for the resignation of the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan. But acute US-UN tensions persist over oil-for-food corruption investigations, UN handling of Iran's nuclear programmes, and Iraq's US-sponsored elections next month. US resentment over what officials regard as lack of UN support for the Iraq polls is barely contained.

The issue topped the agenda in talks yesterday between Mr Annan, the US secretary of state Colin Powell and his designated successor, Condoleezza Rice. The US craves the legitimacy and expertise that only the UN can give the process. Because of security concerns, only 19 UN electoral staff are in Iraq, compared with 266 who oversaw Afghanistan's polls in October.

Mr Annan ordered non-Iraqi UN personnel to leave last year after a bomb killed his senior envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and destroyed the UN's Baghdad headquarters. The US and other security council members have since failed to provide a promised UN protection force.

The UN is planning a limited expansion of advisory and technical operations beyond Baghdad before the January 30 polls. But it believes staff remain at great risk, and insists the conduct and monitoring of the elections are the responsibility of Iraq's electoral commission.

American critics suspect Mr Annan has political motives. Illogically, they blame him for the security council's refusal to endorse the war. His recent condemnation of the invasion as illegal infuriated neo-conservatives. Allegations arising from Saddam Hussein's subversion of the defunct UN oil-for-food programme have thus become a pretext for demanding Mr Annan's head.

Given an opportunity on December 2 to support Mr Annan, George Bush declined. Instead, the president resurrected an old threat - that US funding, 20% of the UN budget, depended "on a good, honest appraisal of that which went on [sic]".

But a week later, after 130 countries voiced support for Mr Annan and the UN general assembly gave him a standing ovation, the administration backed off. Eating humble pie on his boss's behalf, ambassador John Danforth told the UN: "It is important for us, the US, to clarify our position.

We are not suggesting or pushing for the resignation... of the secretary-general. No one has cast doubt on [his] personal integrity. No one. And certainly we don't."

Perhaps Mr Danforth protested too much. In any case, this abrupt shift may be more about timing than international opinion. And it followed an embarrassing re minder of past US hypocrisy over Saddam's regime.

Democratic senator Carl Levin noted that the White House had contributed "very significantly" to the oil-for-food problems by turning a blind eye to much more lucrative, long-running, illegal oil and trade deals between Saddam and US allies such as Jordan and Turkey.

The New York Times thundered that these backdoor schemes put oil-for-food scams in the shade. Demands for Mr Annan's head "seem wildly premature", it said. This may be more stay of execution than reprieve. Mr Annan symbolises all that the neo-cons most resent: an international bureaucracy presuming to set limits on US power.

Meanwhile, Washington is pressing for Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency chief, to stand down. Dr ElBaradei has not been forgiven for being right about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Now he is accused of being soft on Iran. Last week's revelations that the US tapped his telephone conversations with Iranian diplomats recalled allegations about US bugging of Mr Annan's office.

If Mr Annan is safe for now, the main reason may be Mr Bush's purported desire to strengthen his second-term multilateralist credentials. He is heading for Europe in February where support for the UN is strong. He aims to mend fences, particularly in Germany, and rally Nato support in Iraq. But US-UN attrition is only on hold. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service