|
Missing in Action: The Kofi Case
Hidden somewhere in Manhattan is the world’s top diplomat. Be it Grozny, Srinagar, Jerusalem or Baghdad, Mr. Kofi Annan is nowhere to be seen. He is a suit who happens to be the Secretary General of the United Nations. In all the din and rallies against “might is right”, the persona of Kofi Annan has largely escaped scrutiny.
Forged out of the embers of World War II in 1945, the UN was predicated on being a peace-making body. The failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations, drove home the need to rectify past errors through the founding of the United Nations. But recent indicators point to a reinforcement of missteps, the same sort of errors that set the stage for World War II, and led to the collapse of the League of Nations.
Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter explicitly rejects the threat or use of force to settle disputes among the comity of nations. The principal exception to this is found in Article 51, which lays out the proviso of self-defense. When a member nation is attacked, Article 51 permits a country or a coalition of countries to use force against the attacking country. Significantly, Article 51 does not authorize a country to launch a preemptive strike against threatened aggression. However, the UN Charter does deal with threats to international peace and security. Articles 39 and 42 empower the UN Security Council to take whatever measures are necessary, including commitment of armed forces, to counter any “threat to the peace” or “act of aggression.” Thus, under international law, a UN Security Council resolution must authorize the use of force. For the US to act unilaterally or collectively with Britain in launching an attack on Iraq without the blessing of the Security Council is contrary to the express provisions of the UN Charter. This is a point that should be clearly stressed by the Secretary General of the UN in public forums. It is inexplicable that he has failed to do so.
Kofi Annan is the son of a provincial governor of Ghana. He is married to Nane Lagergren, a Swedish attorney whose uncle, Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, assisted many Hungarian Jews to escape from the Nazis during World War II. Kofi Annan rose through the ranks at the UN, first gaining international recognition in the 1990 Persian Gulf War, when he negotiated the release of UN staff being held in Iraq. A recent documentary on Kofi Annan aired by the publicly funded Public Broadcasting Corporation in January 2003 noted that his candidature for Secretary General in 1996 was opposed by some who charged he was not tough enough, that he avoided taking risks, and was averse to conflict.
Certainly, Kofi Annan has made less of a mark than previous Secretary Generals. The UN’s first Secretary General Trygve Lie was active in trying to resolve the Kashmir conflict of the late 40’s. One of Dag Hammarskjold’s earliest initiatives was to offer to participate personally as a mediator between Israel and Jordan. In 1954, he met with Chou en-Lai in Beijing and secured the release of 15 American airmen and later, he defused the Suez Canal crisis by deploying a non-fighting UN force under UN command to restore peace. He was killed in 1961 during the Congo crisis while trying to bring peace to that region. During the Indo-Pak war of 1965, U Thant was kept busy and during the mid-70’s Kurt Waldheim facilitated Yasser Arafat’s landmark address before the UN General Assembly on November 13, 1974.
With the threat of an imposed war on Iraq imminent, Kofi, arguably, should be off to Baghdad and Western capitals knocking heads. Instead, he has opted for the route of quiet and subtle diplomacy. At a speech at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, on February 8, Kofi Annan stated that disarming Iraq is “an issue not for any State alone, but for the international community as a whole” noting that “when States decide to use force, not in self-defense but to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations Security Council.” This is a far cry from insisting that the United States comply with international law. And his reference to the UN Security Council’s “unique legitimacy” to deal with such matters largely went unnoticed in the US press.
During a moment in history that cries out for courageous leadership, Kofi comes across as a submissive figure without the capacity to assert himself and frankly speak his mind. Kofi may have chosen the path of least resistance but the costs of his non-leadership on future world order may be incalculable.
|
