Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Kofi Annan Takes Lead in Water and Development Issues - UN Secretary General - Global Policy Forum Kofi Annan Takes Lead in Water
Earth Times News Service
and Development Issues
November 29, 2001
Only Kofi Annan can decide what he considers the crowning achievement in his astonishing progression from British colonial subject born in a small village in the Gold Coast of Africa to the very height of international diplomacy as UN Secretary General. The Nobel Peace Prize he'll receive at a formal ceremony in Oslo next week has to be near his pinnacle.
He's sharing the award in this Nobels centennial year with the globegirdling Organization he leads. Come to think of it, the UN might not even have been considered Prize material by the Norwegian selection panel were it not for an extraordinary turnaround in its fortunes since he took charge in 1997 -- replacing Egypt's Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who had proved to be a terrible choice at a time of great difficulty and was summarily dismissed by US veto when, in a massive miscalculation, he sought reappointment.
In its citation for Annan's and the UN's awards, the Nobel Prize Committee expressly mentioned the UN's subsequent elevated standing in worldwide esteem and the crucial role played by the new Secretary General in shepherding this remarkable change.
Nearing the end of the final year of his first five-year term, the UN today is being entrusted with ever more daunting responsibilities -- not least, in rebuilding shattered Afghanistan after 23 years of civil war, conflict with Russia and now the US-UK bombardment. It is an extraordinary revival of confidence in the Organization's perceived ability to do duty as a sort of global political, diplomatic and social work horse. A horse for all seasons?
Dag Hammarskjold, the second of the Secretary Generals, famously declared that this was the most impossible job in the world. The phrase appears in a UN media exhibit designed to inform visiting members of the public, a million of whom make the trip annually. The description remains as apt today as it was 40-odd years ago. But cool, calm Kofi Annan, the seventh in a line that began with Norway's Trygve Lie at the UN's creation, has managed to make it seem a bit less impossible. He and a talented group of aides who form his cabinet-style administration, an Annan innovation. By contrast, Boutros-Ghali was a loner, seldom seeking or heeding advice.
With a second Annan term due to begin Jan. 1 -- with no challenger anywhere in sight, he was a shoo-in for reappointment by acclamation months ago -- the UN's future looks rosier today than it has in years.
A debilitating financial shortfall that kept the institution teetering on the edge of bankruptcy has been overcome. Member states, especially the US which was responsible for a fourth of the budget, wouldn't pay their assessed contributions. Now they're settling up and Joseph Connor, the chief financial officer, forecasts that the UN will end 2001 solidly in the black. This, after years of sloshing in red ink with Connor having to perform a daily miracle figuring how to meet its obligations -- even borrowing to meet the secretariat payroll.
The first beneficiaries of the newfound munificence are those many countries that contributed troops and equipment for UN peacekeeping operations with the promise of reimbursement. Until now, it was a pledge unfulfilled, although the creditors include some of the poorest states in the world. They weren't paid because Connor was obliged to conduct regular raids on a depleting peacekeepers account just to keep the Organization afloat and defray regular housekeeping bills.
While even Israel feels more comfortable in a still-hostile UN now that Annan is in command, the most important shift in attitude is that by Washington. What a difference a day makes!
The tragedy of Sept. 11, when the US homeland was criminally attacked for the first time, caused the Bush administration to undertake a rapid reappraisal of its former attachment to unilateralism, disdain for multilateral institutions like the UN and belief -- often stated in arrogant terms -- in the doctrine of America First. The terrorist attacks prompted a profound change. Overnight, there was wisdom in seeking allies and where better to find them than in the ranks of the UN with its 188 other member states, many of which were themselves potential targets for terrorism although, in the Washington lexicon some also were "rogue states." Like Iraq and Libya.
The merits of multinational organizations were recognized for what President Bush predicted would be a long, hard battle against Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.
It's an ill wind . . ., etc. As a result, the UN is on a roll and the US takes credit for the current upsurge of confidence.
As fair an indication as any of the Organization's spectacular return to favor is the White House welcome mat that's already been run out for Annan several times this year. Most recently, last Wednesday when he and President Bush met to discuss Afghanistan and the war on terrorism that, from day one, the Secretary General and the Organization emphatically supported in statements and formal unambiguous resolutions. Recognizing an enemy, bin Laden went on Arabic television to decry the Organization and declare Annan a "criminal."
In Washington last week, the US President greeted the Secretary General as "our friend." Leaders of an estwhile hostile Congress, including the crusty, conservative Sen. Jesse Helms who for years helped to block the payment of US dues and perpetrated the nasty "bloated bureaucracy" libel, fell over themselves to make nice to the UN visitor.
Bush's about-face is little short of stunning.
A year ago, his victory in the tightest presidential election in US history was perceived in New York as very bad news indeed. Al Gore, Bill Clinton's anointed heir, was UN-friendly; Bush was not and hard, hard times were foreseen for the UN and the entire course of multilateral diplomacy.
Into spring and for much of the summer, those fears seemed justified as the new administration proceeded happily along its self-sufficient, go-it-alone course, paying scant attention to others' interests on a wide range of issues and blocking accords for whjat ofen seemed merely whimsical reasons. To a great extent, the America First policy survives, but since Sept. 11 it's been toned down and pursued less aggressively than previously. A bit less roughshod riding over others' positions.
Skepticism toward the UN -- never entirely shared, by the way, by the new Secretary of State Colin Powell, a long-time friend of Annan's -- left the US mission in New York headless for most of this year, after the departure of Richard Holbrooke, Clinton's ambassador. Bush had nominated John D. Negroponte as the replacement, but was in no hurry to obtain requisite Senate confirmation.
Sept. 11 changed that, too. Having a new permanent representative in place, and fast, became imperative.
Liberals' doubts arising from Negroponte's record as a US diplomat in Latin America and his alleged indifference there toward egregious human rights violators were swept away; the confirmation procedure whistled through the Senate in short order. All was forgiven; or nearly all. The new ambassador and Annan have a cordial relationship, which is essential for the success of any Secretary General and for the institution. Boutros-Ghali learned that too late; he was shafted by Madeleine Albright when she was the UN ambassador.
James Cunningham, a career diplomat who held the fort manfully during the long hiatus after Holbrooke left, remains as the deputy permanent representative.
Terrorism and the possibility (probability?) of new attacks as long as bin Laden leads the feared al Qaeda network now is an international obsesssion, reflected in virtually all of the debates during the current session of the UN General Assembly, where Bush made his debut last month during a daylong visit.
But Annan has repeatedly reminded members not to ignore a host of other pressing issues on the global agenda. At least one of these, namely the growing divide between rich and poor both within sovereign nations and internationally, may have helped to motivate the fanatical misfits and malcontents that were easy prey for bin Laden's recruiters and al Qaeda cells have trained for terrorist enterprises.
The UN has high hopes for next year's conference on sustainable economic development, which acquires a new edge now that a link, actual and potential, between terrorism and poverty has been more clearly identified.
HIV/AIDS hasn't gone away since Sept. 11. It's gotten worse and, according to Peter Piot, head of the global UNAIDS organization, it will get worse still before it gets better. Desmond Johns, a South African physician who runs the UNAIDS office in New York, reports that there now are 45 million people known to have the infection and in parts of his own country as well as in Botswana and Swaziland as many as 30 percent of all pregnant women harbor the virus -- a chilling thought: a new generation of children destined to be born infected.
Kofi Annan hoped to have a $10 billion-a-year campaign to beat the disease up and running by the end of this year. The US pledged $200 million, with more to come, and there have been significant donations from other wealthy nations include the European Union states and Japan, but the economic recession that began in March and was only exacerbated by recent dire events makes AIDS fund-raising that much more difficult.
Meanwhile, says Piot, HIV infections in Eastern Europe now are rising faster than anywhere else and include a fifteenfold increase in Russia in only the past three years. Also, he says, the reported numbers are largely underestimates. Annan's own leadership in the war on AIDS is one of the many reasons he was named this year's Nobel laureate.
As is well known, nations rich and poor spend an inordinate percentage of their incomes not on health care and education but on weapons of mass destruction. The UN General Assembly just went through another annual ritual of inconclusive disarmament debate, this time amid newly heightened concern about the adequacy of safeguards for nuclear weapons stocks.
It's assumed that the terrorist groups would dearly love to get their hands on a nuclear device. A recent statement by bin Laden, in an interview with a Pakistani editor, appears to confirm this.
Russia and the other nuclear powers, that now include India and Pakistan, insist that they maintain absolutely tight control over their atomic arsenals. Pakistan especially, whose proximity to Afghanistan adds an extra dimension of risk for its nuclear stock. But bin Laden indicated his confidence that enough money could be found to find a seller of nuclear material in Central Asia.
Disarmament is an area in which the Bush administration has been less than helpful, in the view of most members of the international community. The White House appears determined to defy the rest of the world by pressing on with its program to create an antiballistic missiles shield, while calling the antiballistic weapons treaty an anachronism. Others say the pact is a cornerstone of disarmament.
With huge quantities of small arms causing widespread alarm and continuing to be weapons of choice in civil wars -- where they are easily carried by child soldiers, among others. But John Bolton, the US representative, recently opposed effective UN curbs, in deference to the conservative American doctrine of a constitutional "right to bear arms."
Palestinian kids throw rocks at Israeli troops and settlers and suicidal Islamic "martyrs" bomb schools and restaurants. The Israel Defense Force responds with heavy weapons. Annan calls on both sides to halt the violence and work toward a peace settlement. This, it seems, is beyond the UN's capacity. The US and the European Union are trying, again, but with little hope for success.
Perhaps this is beyond anyone's ability, save the two sides. And they have shown no inclination toward compromise.
Back in New York, the General Assembly's ministerial-level debate had to be postponed, for security reasons, from September until November, amid fears that the 39-story UN headquarters might be a prime target -- as it was in 1993 when the World Trade Center was attacked for the first time, by car-bomber Muslim extremists.
Bush's opening day speech dwelled extensively on terrorism crisis. There was, however, a brief but important aside related to the Middle East conflict: the first utterance by an American leader of the hitherto forbidden word Palestine. (He said the US looks forward to separate states of Israel and Palestine.)
The President stayed for lunch, hosted by Annan for all visiting heads of state and delegation leaders, and conferred privately with several of them, including the US's new ally Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. But not with Yasser Arafat, who was infuriated by the snub, so much so that Annan had to send an emissary to calm him down. The White House believes that the president of the Palestinian Authority has not done enough to curb his side's violent acts against Israel.
Since Nov. 10 and Bush's daylong UN visit, the US has eagerly accepted a central role for Annan and his advisers Lakhdar Brahimi and Francesc Vendrell in the attempt to broker an accord among Afghanistan's warring factions that might at last bring that tortured land to peace under a broadly based government. The administration looks also to Ruud Lubbers, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and Catherine Bertini, head of the World Food Program (a UN agency) to relieve the plight of a population of refugees and internally displaced persons that Annan estimates may be as high as 7.5 million.
Talks on Afghanistan's future governance got off to a fast start in Bonn, but Afghanistan has a history of broken promises. How to police a truce could be a task for a multinational force sanctioned by the Security Council. But not by blue-helmeted UN peacekeepers. Shashi Tharoor, an adviser to Annan, says that deploying a UN force could take a minimum of three months, far too long to wait in a tinderbox situation. National contingents typically can be assembled and dispatched to the field within a week or two. However, the victorious Northern Alliance made clear its strong preference for an all-Afghan force.
Although TV screens and newspaper pages have carried images of "starving" Afghan refugees. These look plump and well-fed compared to the scrawny, potbellied children of Sierra Leone, Burundi and Rwanda. Still, there's no doubt about the grave humanitarian crisis. This was a principal reason for Annan's White House visit with Lubbers, Bertini and Kenzo Oshima, the UN coordinator for emergency relief.
"The Secretary General has been so great on this issue and he's assembled a wonderful team," an admiring Bush said in remarks afterward to White House reporters.
Notwithstanding this US-UN lovefest, it should come as no surprise that the two sides still have many differences. The General Assembly just called, for the tenth year in a row, for the lifting of the US embargo against Cuba (only the US, Israel and the Marshall Islands voted in favor of retaining it); and there are numerous social issues on which Washington and the UN do not see eye to eye and are not likely to anytime soon.
The Bush administration worries about UN population control programs, fearing the promotion of abortion (which the Organization emphatically rejects) and just a few days ago a promising attempt at a World Health Organization-sponsored conference to curb tobacco advertising was nipped by US objections on the ground that it would violate free speech protections guaranteed by the constitution.
Washington has been less solicitous about protecting some other civil liberties, in the cause of fighting terrorism, thus provoking a storm of protests across the political spectrum. But two-thirds of those polled in a recent National Public Radio survey said they had no objection.
More Information on the Secretary General More Information on UN Reform FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C ß 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
