Kofi Annan and the Bush Administration
Today is Kofi Annan’s last day on the job. The legacy stories about his ten years as UN Secretary General have focused on the parting shots he delivered to the Bush administration earlier this month. But a more accurate description is that Annan has consistently been a pro-American Secretary General. On issues ranging from promoting democracy to human rights, Annan has put himself at odds with the UN’s non-democracies, and in alignment with principles that this administration has propounded, if not practiced.
The clearest illustration is Annan’s views on the use of force. He has stood for the principle that there are higher values than getting the approval of the UN Security Council. After the Kosovo war, when the Secretary Council failed to authorize military action to avert mass atrocities, Annan said, “The choice...must not be between Council unity and inaction in the face of genocide, as in the case of Rwanda, on the one hand; and Council division, and regional action, as in the case of Kosovo, on the other.”
After the Iraq invasion, Annan told the General Assembly in September 2003, “It is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.”
Annan also started the push that led in 2005 to the General Assembly’s adoption of the “responsibility to protect.” In clear and unambiguous language, UN members endorsed the principle that state sovereignty is a condition of state behavior. States that engage in mass atrocities don’t get to fend off international action by claiming interference into their “domestic jurisdiction.”
Annan’s significant flaws – a failure to rein in the Secretariat and lapses in judgment – are well known. But Annan will be remembered as a Secretary General who led the UN out of the mind-your-own-business mindset that marked the Cold War. In its place he has set out a framework that would put the rights of people to live ahead of the rights of states to do as they please.
Although I am a strong supporter of the UN as an institution I am very nonplussed about Annan and his tenure at the UN.
Mr. Feinstein, I do not see the UN being led out of a "mind-your-own-business mindset" like you do. It is still dominated by the Europeans, America and China who always put their national interests in front of global ones. Maybe there is sentiment to change that but as of yet that hasn't changed...
December 31, 2006 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kofi Annan should be remembered for what he was: an able administrator who was given to special interest.
It's not as if Annan was a bad Secretary General. But, on the other hand, it is difficult to muster a serious argument proclaiming him to be a good Secretary General.
To be honest, Annan's tenure at the UN had a great deal of ebb and flow; a sort of tide that came and went with the prosperity and success of the United States.
During the Clinton years Annan was very successful. During the Bush years, he was a dismal failure.
Coincidence? I think not.
His recent bitterness at the United States is unfortunate given that George W. Bush is but a temporary fixture atop our nation's political pedestal. Annan, like so many Democrats, spent far too much time waging a war of words against the Bush administration and not nearly enough time developing effective ways to counter the injustices.
December 31, 2006 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your point about Annan spending to much time griping about Bush and not enough trying to lead the UN to counter what Bush was doing is a very valid criticism of Annan.
And I agree that the blame for the ineffectiveness of the UN in the last 6 years can be equally shared by Annan and George W. Bush.
January 1, 2007 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kofi Annan will be remembered by future historians in the same light as the Vichy government in Hitler's France. He was the puppet of a genocidal megolamaniac.
He created or at best, allowed a shadow government to be formed under the architecture of Oil for Food and the leftists that pressured him to lift sanctions on saddam. Did he do this to line the pockets of his family (proven) or because of his open belligerance to the US, ...take your pick?
Under the criminal enterprise that flourished under his leadership, government officials took bribes from Saddam, that included the highest levels of government including the Chief of Staff of Chirac, Germany's PM inner circle, Russian officials. Our Allies? The payoffs turned the Security council into a bunch of Paid off judges akin to Al Capone's manipulation of the Chicago criminal justice system of the 30s. No Security Council votes would ever favor us or oppose the goose that laid the golden egg, as long as Kofi's son and the corrupt European politician's that claimed they were our allies.
Any discussion of his position on the war with Iraq cannot assume he had a sincere ideological belief when faced with his proven complicity with a poison gas wielding Mass murderer who thankfully is 6 feet under ground with a stretched neck.
One positive byproduct of the War in Iraq is it has forced the international community to admit that the UN was a capsized ship that needed righting. When the Referees are on the take, the votes can't be trusted.
Bush, Paul Volcker, and the destruction of Saddam's Baathist regime have moved us toward a repair of Kofi Annan's Upside Down reign as Saddam's puppet.
January 1, 2007 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may well be true that the United States "always" put their interests in front of global ones, but that is hardly an accusation that can be justified regarding Europeans, Canadians or Latin Americans.
The inclusion of China in the bunch is not easier to understand.
The organisation is not likely to become much better than it is. Particularly not given a certain large member's propaganda sniping, opposition or, exceptionally, lacking support.
The organisation, like its supporters, ought to concentrate on what it does well, and improve there while cutting down on what it has attempted but failed. Unless we want to abolish it althoghter.
January 5, 2007 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with some of what you said and disagree with other things JM...
Some of the European countries have, at times, put their interests ahead of the world''s. France and Russia do jump to mind. But overall I have mostly praise for the way the Europeans view the role of the UN. And if the UN was run in their vision it would be a much more effective body. Much of it does depend on who the American president is. The UN was very effective when Clinton was president because he believed in the body to do the work it is supposed to. And it doesn't work well when there is a president like Bush who believes in a unilateral foreign policy for the US.
Should the UN be reformed? I think so. I think it would operate much better with some changes but I have no desire to see the body done away with. I fully support the idea of the UN and it's role in the world...
January 5, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
France and Russia are alongside the British the worst possible examples of "Europeans". To take them as the representatives of "the world" or of "Europe" is in my opinion propaganda of the lowest level and serves only the purposes of them who wishes international instability and civilians' sufferings.
January 5, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...well even if you don't want to incluse those countries as part of Europe "in spirit" they are part of the continent in geography. But in terms of Europeans, in general tems, "getting" the point of what the UN is supposed to be about...I agree with you.
January 5, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are parts of, but not typical for.
Just like maybe Texans are U.S. citizens but (hopefully) not typical.
January 5, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink