inside the glass house

Awakening of Annan: Too late for action
NEW YORK - Last year was a year of grief, frustration and disappointment for the United Nations-- one of the biggest political casualties of the US war on Iraq.

When the Bush administration launched its military attack on Baghdad without the blessings of the Security Council, it reduced the world body to a political non-entity and violated the principle of collective security, a principle on which the organisation was founded.

As long as the US continues to peddle its theory of unilateral action - be it in Iraq, North Korea, Syria or Cuba - a multilateral organisation like the UN will remain politically irrelevant. The US also marginalized the world body by refusing to give the UN a key role in running the civil administration in Iraq and in the reconstruction of the war devastated country.

The UN also took a heavy beating when its compound in Baghdad was bombed by the Iraqi resistance, claiming the lives of 22 staffers, including Under-Secretary-General Sergio Vieira de Mello. At the UN Secretariat in New York, there is deep anger and resentment against Washington for unceremoniously dumping the world body. And the Secretariat is biting back.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who was initially accused of caving into US demands, has been openly critical of American-sponsored Security Council resolutions for their shortcomings. Over strong US objections, he also pulled out all international staff from Iraq and has refused to send them back until the security situation improves in Iraq - a tall order in a country where even American soldiers are constantly under attack.

And as a result, Annan is now being pilloried by right-wing conservatives who continue to take potshots at him. To most right-wingers, the age old slogan "Send in the Marines" has now been replaced by the demand: "Send in the United Nations."

But the UN has refused to budge prompting the Bush administration to retaliate by even proposing the creation of a new international peacekeeping force outside the perimeters of the UN. Last year, when Annan faulted a lop-sided US resolution for failing to assure self-rule to Iraqis, he was accused of threatening a regime change - of all places, in the White House.

The politically conservative "Wall Street Journal" said Annan's open criticism of the US resolution was "unprecedented for a UN leader." Annan has made it clear, said the Journal editorial, "that he's now more interested in defeating (US) President George Bush than he ever was in toppling (Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein."

The charge was way off the mark, even though right wing American ideologues fear that the deadly US military misadventure in Iraq may cost Bush a second term as president in elections scheduled to take place in November 2004. And that has nothing to do with Annan because it is of Bush's own making.

When Annan complained a second time that a US resolution fell short of expectations, an unnamed senior US official - rumoured to be Secretary of State Colin Powell - was quoted as saying that Annan's remarks were "unhelpful, unusual and surprising."

In his opening address to the 191-member General Assembly in mid September, Annan made a strong denunciation of the concept of pre-emptive military strikes - taking a dig at the US. At a summit meeting on terrorism, also in mid-September, Annan voiced his public condemnation of state terrorism - this time, taking a dig at Israel, a political sacred cow in the US.

Since Annan is also in his second and final five-year term - with no possibility of re-election for a third term - he is able to withstand the criticism and survive.

But Professor As'ad Abukhalil of the California State University, author of several publications on international politics, is less charitable. "It is too late for Kofi Annan to try to rescue the sinking reputation of his leadership, or lack thereof, of the international organisation," he says. "Maybe the UN bombings in Baghdad were a wake-up call for Annan, who had been long asleep at the wheel. But it is a belated wake-up, and this person who was brought in by the US, will be kept by the US because he proved his usefulness," he added.

Stephen Zunes, a longtime UN watcher and professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, believes that Annan is deeply committed to the UN as an institution.

"So, the credibility of the world body is of great importance to him. He recognises the geo-political 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 said.

At the same time, Annan realizes that allowing the Bush administration to get away with too much would damage the credibility of the UN in much of the rest of the world.

"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 organisation, has been one way of trying to find that middle ground," he said.

And as UN Secretary-General, he may 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," Zunes said.

Back to Columns