| |
Annan walks the middle
ground
By Thalif Deen
NEW
YORK - When United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan
recently faulted a lop-sided United States resolution
for failing to assure self-rule for Iraqis, he was
accused of threatening a regime change in the White
House.
The politically conservative Wall Street
Journal said Annan's open criticism of the proposal was
"unprecedented for a UN leader". Annan has made it
clear, said the Journal editorial, "that he's now more
interested in defeating President George Bush than he
ever was in toppling Saddam Hussein".
The charge
was way off the mark, even though right-wing US
ideologues fear that the deadly US military misadventure
in Iraq might cost Bush a second term as president in
elections scheduled for 2004 - the fault of Bush himself
and nothing to do with Annan.
At a time when
many are dismissing the UN, Annan has been trying to
assert himself and protect the credibility of the
much-maligned organization. Last Thursday, he announced
the withdrawal of his international staff from Baghdad,
over US objections, fearing for their safety.
When Annan complained that the recent US
resolution fell short of expectations, an unnamed senior
US official - rumored to be Secretary of State Colin
Powell - was quoted as saying that the UN chief's
remarks were "unhelpful", "unusual" and "surprising".
In his opening address to the 191-member General
Assembly in September, Annan strongly denounced the
concept of the preemptive military strike - taking a dig
at the US, which invaded Iraq in March without UN
authorization.
At a summit meeting on terrorism,
also in September, Annan condemned state terrorism, this
time taking a shot at Israel, a political sacred cow in
the US administration.
Still, Annan's new-found
assertiveness has drawn mixed reviews from US academics,
long-time UN watchers and representatives of
non-governmental organizations. "It is too late for Kofi
Annan to try to rescue the sinking reputation of his
leadership, or lack thereof, of the international
organization," Professor As'ad Abukhalil of California
State University told IPS.
"Maybe the UN
bombings in Baghdad were a wakeup call for Annan, who
had been long asleep at the wheel. But it is a belated
wakeup, and this person who was brought in by the United
States, will be kept by the United States because he
proved his usefulness."
Former UN assistant
secretary general Hans Von Sponeck, who headed the
oil-for-food program in Iraq, was more charitable. "The
US government does not want to understand that its
hegemonial policies and its unilateral actions are
endangering the future of the organization Secretary
General Annan is heading. Annan has no choice but to
remind the United States that this is neither acceptable
to the international community nor to himself," Von
Sponeck told IPS.
Stephen Zunes, professor of
politics at the University of San Francisco, believes
Annan is deeply committed to the UN as an institution.
"So, the credibility of the world body is of great
importance to him. He recognizes the geopolitical
reality of a unipolar world, where challenging US
prerogatives too directly could end up harming not just
his career but the institution as a whole," Zunes added
in an interview.
At the same time, Annan
realizes that allowing the Bush administration to get
away with too much would damage UN credibility in much
of the rest of the world, he added. "It has always been
a delicate balancing act, and his eloquent use of 'UN
speak', the diplomatic style of communication he has
learned through his many years of service to the
organization, has been one way of trying to find that
middle ground," Zunes said.
As UN secretary
general, Annan might be one of the few people with a
high enough profile and international reputation to
potentially make a difference. "Besides, most
secretaries-general don't serve more than two terms,
anyway," he added.
Annan, a native of Ghana and
the first UN secretary general from Africa, completes
his second five-year term in December 2006.
Ian
William, a contributing editor to the New York-based
Nation magazine, told IPS that Annan is clearly not
standing for another term "and I think he is genuinely
upset when he discovered how his tactfulness was being
misinterpreted in the Third World - not least when the
consequences of confusion between the occupation and the
UN's undefined 'vital' role were so bloodily exposed in
Baghdad".
"In either case," said Williams, "Annan
has to bridge the divide: the United Nations can only
work effectively with the United States as a member, but
cannot work in the way the UN charter and the other
members want by letting Washington pull all of the
strings all of the time. He obviously felt that the time
had come to draw a line in the sands - of Iraq,"
Williams added.
Jeff Laurenti, a long-time UN
expert and member of the board of directors of the UN
Association of USA, told IPS that Annan alone has the
international and American credibility to be able to
represent the UN cause in the face of the controversy
coming out of Washington.
"He was explicitly
critical of preemptive strikes. But he was careful not
to criticize any particular government. [Yet] nobody
could fail to see he was talking about the conservative
ideologues in Washington," Laurenti said.
"It is
his conviction - and that of many others in the world -
that the whole question of regulation of the use of
force is the cornerstone of the UN charter and the
collective security system. And if you take that out,
the whole structure comes crumbling down. So, he felt
compelled to dramatize it and make this issue the sole
theme of his address to the General Assembly, which
indicates the gravity of the situation."
Laurenti also pointed out that humanitarian
intervention was Annan's theme in his 1991 General
Assembly speech following the Kosovo war: "Ultimately it
is people, not states that matter," he said at the time.
"Just as he took on the governments of developing
countries in that debate, so Annan has taken on the
American nationalist conservative critics this year. In
a sense, there is a symmetry," Laurenti added.
"Annan obviously feels that if he does not speak
up on this, he will be remembered in history as a
secretary general who was afraid to stand up to the
ideals of the United Nations. And that Kofi Annan is
definitely not."
But Joan Russow of the
Canada-based Global Compliance Research Project saw no
redeeming feature in Annan's General Assembly statement.
"Regardless of Kofi Annan's remarks about preemptive
preventive attacks, the Security Council under his
guidance has essentially condoned what should not be
condoned: preemptive attacks; violation of the [UN]
charter and the rule of international law; invaders
setting up a hand-picked provisional government in Iraq;
and invaders avoiding their responsibilities under UN
Geneva Conventions," she said.
"After Bush
declared that the war in Iraq was over, Annan called
upon nations to support the reconstruction of, and
humanitarian support, for Iraq, conveying that there
were no irreversible consequences of war; and
consequently relegated the United Nations to the role of
not 'preventer' but a perpetuator of the cycle of
terror," Russow added.
(Inter Press Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
