*Kofi Anan |
In the Byzantine world of UN politics, various
informal interest groups battle each other for plum posts. Annan appeared to
have little patience for this kind of intrigue, believing instead in a
charmingly antiquated version of meritocracy in this world of egocentric
godfathers. He also seemed to have made few political enemies during his ascent
to the top: a truly impressive feat in the often ruthless political environment
of jostling Lords of the Manor who jealously guard their bureaucratic fiefdoms.
Annan’s predecessor as UN Secretary-General was Egyptian scholar-diplomat,
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who held the post between 1992 and 1996, and died in
2016. While Annan was naturally calm and conciliatory, Boutros-Ghali was
stubborn and studious; where Annan was a bureaucratic creature of the UN
system, and lived mostly in Western capitals, Boutros-Ghali – a former
professor – was the most intellectually accomplished Secretary-General in the
history of the office and deeply steeped in African politics, having served as Egypt ’s deputy
foreign minister. Where Boutros-Ghali was arrogant and cerebral, Annan was
affable and charming. Where Boutros-Ghali was seen by his staff as an aloof,
pompous Pharaoh, Annan was regarded as an accessible, personable Prophet. He
and his Swedish wife, Nane (he married her in 1984 after divorcing his first
wife, Titi Alakija with whom he had a son, Kojo, and daughter, Ama), soon
became regular New York socialites in contrast to the reclusive Boutros-Ghali.
Annan had studied at American institutions – Macalaster
College and the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology – and was effectively propelled into the top UN job by Washington .
Astonishingly, he worked with the Americans as they plotted the removal of the
first African Secretary-General, Boutros-Ghali. The Ghanaian thus never shook
off the image among many Southern diplomats of being an American poodle. Before
becoming Secretary-General, Annan had served as UN Undersecretary-General for
Peacekeeping under Boutros-Ghali in a period that saw monumental blunders in Bosnia and Rwanda which did great damage to
the UN’s and his own personal reputation. Independent reports in 1999
criticised Annan and his officials for a lack of courage in both failures.
The genocide in Rwanda in which 800,000 people
perished, in particular, appeared to have personally scarred Annan, and dogged
his historical legacy. Perhaps as a result of a sense of guilt from both
debacles; as UN Secretary-General, he consistently championed “humanitarian
intervention.” Many leaders in the global South, however, criticised Annan’s
promotion of an idea that they saw as potentially allowing powerful states to
launch self-interested interventions. These concerns appeared to have been
confirmed by the widely condemned American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003,
launched without UN Security Council approval.
Annan’s 2005 reform efforts established an
ineffectual Peace-building Commission, a still contentious Human Rights
Council, and the concept of the “responsibility to protect” which was widely
seen to have been manipulated by Paris, London, and Washington to launch a
“regime change” intervention in Libya in 2011. Annan’s reforms of the UN
bureaucracy were methodical rather than revolutionary, continuing the reduction
of staff began under his predecessor and initiating efforts at better
coordination among UN departments.
The Ghanaian was, however, accused of
serious management failures in the “Oil-for Food” programme in Iraq . Annan’s
troubled final years in office saw him rendered a lame duck by the U.S. , the
country that had done the most to anoint him Secretary-General. He finally and
painfully discovered the ancient wisdom: that one needs a long spoon to sup
with the devil.
*Prof. Adebajo is director, Institute for Pan-African Thought and Conversation, University of Johannesburg,South
Africa .
*Prof. Adebajo is director, Institute for Pan-African Thought and Conversation, University of Johannesburg,
No comments:
Post a Comment