Will Ban Ki Moon play an evenhand in the UN?

"It is too soon to review his performance but it may be of vital interest for him and other nations who are members of the UN to dispassionately asses the performance of the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan who apparently did not have a legacy and has gone into oblivion almost immediately after his retirement."

by Saybhan Samat in Colombo to Sri Lanka Guardian

(December, 19, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Since Ban Ki Moon took office as Secretary-General of the august body - the United Nations Organisation and he seems to be feeling the pressure; in the conflicting self-interests of nations. To play an even hand will be well nigh impossible.

However all nations expect fair play and justice in the conduct of the Secretary-General. Ban-Ki-Moon himself before he took office declared that there is a crisis of confidence in the UN and this has in a great measure reduced the effectiveness of the world body today.

******************************************
"And now in the increasingly unilateral post cold-war Pax Americana, the UN has been reduced to an instrument for legitimising Washington's military adventures around the world, and an engine for the march of American-style globalisation."

******************************************
It is too soon to review his performance but it may be of vital interest for him and other nations who are members of the UN to dispassionately asses the performance of the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan who apparently did not have a legacy and has gone into oblivion almost immediately after his retirement.

It is true that the fundamental principles of peace, tolerance, justice and human rights are central to UN's Charter and mission. Yet the UN has rarely succeeded in ensuring that these lofty ideals are upheld. Until the closing days of the cold war era, the UN was in effect an arena for super power rivalry.

And now in the increasingly unilateral post cold-war Pax Americana, the UN has been reduced to an instrument for legitimising Washington's military adventures around the world, and an engine for the march of American-style globalisation.

The only time the UN took an anti-US stand was the time when the UN did not sanction the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Kofi Annan for once in his life time managed to summon enough courage to say that the invasion was illegal. Perhaps that was the only time he exercised fair play and justice in the running of the UN.

In other events he time and again held with Washington's agenda, though professing, he was independent.

The UN stood idly by as the genocide in Rwanda, where some 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutu tribesmen, unfolded.

It failed to prevent the infamous massacre at Srebrenica, where some 8,000 Muslims were slaughtered by the Serbs in a UN designated safe haven.

The fact that, when these atrocities took place, Annan was head of UN peace-keeping operations, itself exposed his inefficiency. More over, the UN had completely abdicated its responsibility in many a hotspot around the world; it's officials content themselves with vacuous resolutions, statements and appeals that largely fell on deaf ears.

Kofi Annan was born into an aristocratic Ghanian family on April 8, 1938. He completed his undergraduate education in economics at McAlster College in St. Paul Minnesota, USA.

In 1961 and 1962, he attended graduate school in Economics in the Institute Universitaire des Hautes Internationals in Geneva. Throughout his career at the UN, Annan displayed remarkable skill in working his way through the ranks of the UN system.

His ability to prosper in the bureaucratic nightmare that is the UN indicated a strong instinct for self-preservation and self-promotion. Kofi Annan was awarded the Nobel prize in 2001. In many ways the Nobel peace prize is a reward for being a good servant of the West in general and of the US is particular.

It is a reward for Annan's obsequious silence about, and active efforts to provide a veneer for, the US's efforts to tailor an international post cold war order to its desires and interests. Since he became Secretary-General in 1997, Annan had never been tired of repeating the platitudes of his patrons in Washington.

He also propounded the end of sovereignty and irrelevance of national boundaries. These were strange utterances from the head of an organisation based on the sovereign equality of all its members.

******************************************

"Ban-Ki-Moon is new to the job. It will be a tremendous task to remove the crisis in confidence that has enveloped the UN. One can only wish him well. The voice for reform has grown especially since the UN has now grown to be an organisation that has more than 70,000 peace makers deployed and also has development and humanitarian programmes all over the world."

*******************************************
In pandering to Washington's whims and caprices, Annan was ready to abandon every principle of the UN and to make a mockery of international law.

His stand on the US, British bombing of Afghanistan is a case in point. He interpreted the UN Charter to justify the US-led strikes on Afghanistan, saying that the attacks are act of self-defence permitted under Article 51 of the Charter.

But Article 51 permits states to defend themselves against on going or imminent attack as a temporary measure until the Security Council can restore international peace and stability. It says nothing about a country that harbours or might be harbouring a nation's enemies.

Annan's sanction of a US-led military action against Afghanistan also contravenes the express words of numerous articles of the UN Charter.

One of these is Article 2.3, which states that: "All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered."

Another is Article 2.4 which states that: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Article 39 states that: "The Secretary Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken to restore international peace and security."

In the light of these facts which cannot be denied, it seems perverse that Annan who for a decade displayed unbridled eagerness to facilitate the US's war-mongering was awarded the Nobel prize for peace. Dag Hammarskjoeld a former UN Secretary-General was awarded the Nobel prize posthumously in 1961, many believed that he was martyred in the course of his duty to sincerely uphold the Charter of the UN.

In addition, it was during Annan's tenure that the scandal of oil for food broke out and it was even alleged that Annan's son was involved in wrong doing. During the tenure of Annan and presently there is serious charge of child abuse by UN peace makers serving in Africa and in Haiti.

Ban-Ki-Moon is new to the job. It will be a tremendous task to remove the crisis in confidence that has enveloped the UN. One can only wish him well.

The voice for reform has grown especially since the UN has now grown to be an organisation that has more than 70,000 peace makers deployed and also has development and humanitarian programmes all over the world.

Ban-Ki-Moon's task is daunting indeed, one hopes he will not make the mistakes that Kofi Annan made.