| Submit your comments on this article | |||||
| International-UN-NGOs | |||||
| UN chief's career | |||||
| 2004-05-03 | |||||
| NO other organisation is regarded with such respect as the United Nations But, as the current scandal surrounding the UN's administration of the Iraq oil-for-food program demonstrates, and as the world remembers the Rwanda genocide that began 10 years ago, respect for the UN should be viewed as something of a superstition, with Secretary-General Kofi Annan as its false prophet. Not since Dag Hammarskjold has a UN leader been as acclaimed as Annan. Up to a point, this is understandable. Annan usually maintains an unruffled, dignified demeanour. He has charm and – many say – charisma. But a leader ought to be judged by his or her actions when important matters are at stake. Annan's failures in such situations are almost invariably glossed over.
One of the two great disasters for which he bears a large share of the blame is the Serbian slaughter of 7000 people in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, perhaps the worst massacre in post-war Europe. In 1993, Bosnia's Muslims were promised that UN forces would protect them. This commitment was a precondition of their consent to disarm. The UN declared Srebrenica a "safe haven" to be "protected" by 600 Dutch UN troops. In July 1995, Serb forces attacked. The UN did not honour its pledge. Annan's staff released evasive, confused statements. Oblivious, apparently, to the dreadfulness of the situation, they failed to sound the alarm properly and did nothing to intervene. The Dutch fired not a single shot. NATO air power could have halted the Serbs, but Annan did not ask for NATO intervention.
No one should be surprised by the UN's inaction, because only the year before it had demonstrated utter incompetence in facing the fastest genocide in history – the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda in just 100 days. UN forces in Rwanda in 1994 were Annan's responsibility before and during the crisis. Annan was alerted four months before Hutu activists began their mass killings by a fax message from Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general commanding UN forces in Rwanda. Dallaire described in detail how the Hutus were planning "anti-Tutsi extermination". He identified his source "a Hutu" and reported that arms were ready for the impending ethnic cleansing. Dallaire requested permission to evacuate his informant and to seize the arms cache. Annan rejected both demands, proposing that Dallaire make the informant's identity known to Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, even though the informant had expressly named the president's closest entourage as the authors of the genocide blueprint. Annan maintained his extreme passiveness even after the airplane crash that killed Habyarimana, which signalled the genocide's start, helped by the indifference of the great powers. One might think Annan far too compromised to become secretary-general but the UN doesn't work that way. Instead of being forced to resign after Rwanda and Srebrenica, he was promoted to the post.
But Wallenberg's name should make us even more dismayed about Annan's record. In Hungary, Wallenberg exploited every contact, resorting to shady tricks, bribes and other stratagems to save as many people as possible from the Holocaust. He never allowed himself to be duped by Hitler's cronies.
Annan cannot plead he faced any risk to his safety, whereas Wallenberg in 1944 and 1945 was in constant peril. Nor can he excuse himself by saying no warnings were given, or that he lacked resources, or that he did not have the international position to intervene. Annan had at his disposal all the instruments of power and opinion Wallenberg lacked. Yet, when thousands or hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to mortal threats he had the authority and duty to avert, alleviate, or at least announce, he failed. Now, despite revelations about bribery in the UN's oil-for-food program for Iraq, the world is clamouring to entrust Annan with the future of more than 20 million Iraqis who survived Saddam Hussein dictatorship. That is because of who Annan is and what the UN has become: an institution in which no shortcoming, it seems, goes unrewarded. The writer, Per Ahlmark, is a former deputy prime minister of Sweden. | |||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #34 Why don't you CITE those records? Why don't you? I'm busy. You do it this time, and I promise I'll do it next time. Kofi's son participated in the Oil-For Saddam bribes - think Kofi's clean? It looks corrupt to me. I don't defend that. It has nothing, however, to do with whether Kofi Annan is to blame for the Srebrenice massacre. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester TROLL 2004-05-03 12:07:19 PM |
| #33 Yet I don't recall hearing him say a thing. I suppose that's sufficient proof. By the way, do you want the UN Secretary-General to "overcome obstacles" and to "scream far and wide" when he doesn't like US vetoes in the Security Council? . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester TROLL 2004-05-03 10:56:00 AM |
| #32 the stuff needed to get things done in the face of these obstacles The obstacles were two Security Council members with veto power. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester TROLL 2004-05-03 9:56:56 AM |
| #31 Raptor, Kofi Annan is an executive who basically only carries out the will of the United Nations members, especially the will of the Security Council. Two members of the Security Council -- Russia and China -- consistently vetoed or threatened to veto effective measures to counter Serbia. Kofi Annan did not have the authority to ignore their positions and to do whatever he personally might prefer to do. Kofi Annan did not have the authority to levy his own troops sufficient to counter the Serbian forces. He had insufficient forces because that is what the UN members gave him. NATO eventually had to oppose Serbia, because Russia and China prevented a UN response. If you're looking for someone in the UN to blame, I would blame Russia and China -- not Kofi Annan. As for Kofi Annan's decision to withdraw UN personnel from Iraq, that was a reasonable decision in the circumstances. What UN members have criticized his decision? None. Not even the US delegation has criticised his decision. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester TROLL 2004-05-03 9:00:47 AM |
| #30 If Annan was WHITE, it would have been OUSTED from its cushy job long ago. Whatever you say, Garrison. The one mistake President Bush should acknowledge was the decision he took to allow that Hutu-loving fecesstain a SECOND term as Secretary General. Whatever you say, Garrison. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester TROLL 2004-05-03 7:48:41 AM |
| #29 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-03 12:07:19 PM |
| #28 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-03 10:56:00 AM |
| #27 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-03 9:56:56 AM |
| #26 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-03 9:00:47 AM |
| #25 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-03 7:48:41 AM |
| #24 Coming soon-The UN Shuffle.Kofi will hold press conference announcing he is stepping down-not because he did anything wrong,but because he loves the UN soooo much and he doesn't want to be a distraction from the important work the UN does.Sven will retire quietly w/comment he did the best he could against all those lying Iraqis.New leader will announce that all is in the past,and that UN has to look toward future. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-05-03 4:08:03 PM |
| #23 By the way, do you want the UN Secretary-General to "overcome obstacles" and to "scream far and wide" when he doesn't like US vetoes in the Security Council? Part of the problem here is that Anan has taken it upon himself to make pronouncements as if he was a statesman and not just an executive. That leaves him open to criticisms which are unfair if aimed at a mere bureaucrat. Anan wants the respect of a leader without the responsibility, or so it would appear. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-05-03 2:53:04 PM |
| #22 NO other organisation is regarded with such respect as the United Nations. I had to hold back a loud, hysterical laugh when I read this one. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-05-03 1:20:58 PM |
| #21 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-03 12:07:19 PM |
| #20 Why Mike, if Kofi DID say anything, loudly, far, and wide, about these massacres, then they'd be on the record. Since you're so much for him, why don't you CITE those records? |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-05-03 11:50:31 AM |
| #19 Well spoken, mhw, in comment #19! What does anyone expect the UN to do given its membership of dictatorial and tyrannical governments holding the majority of the votes? When Israelis attack the West Bank or Gaza in raids to eliminate terrorists, everyone at the UN is all a-froth to condemn Israel. When the terrorists blow up an Israeli bus full of women and children, they order mineral water. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-05-03 11:40:58 AM |
| #18 By the way, do you want the UN Secretary-General to "overcome obstacles" and to "scream far and wide" when he doesn't like US vetoes in the Security Council? Not me; I want the UN to be exposed and destroyed as a utopian fraud, the quicker the better. |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks 2004-05-03 11:21:42 AM |
| #17 The fact that much of the world is comprized of thugocracies and kleptocracies and that many of the countries have organized hate campaigns against the US guaranteed that the UN would be the kind of organization that it has become. Maybe Kofi expedited this slightly, but the fundamental flaw of the UN is not the SecGen; it is the membership. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-05-03 11:20:13 AM |
| #16 Mike - Kofi's son participated in the Oil-For Saddam bribes - think Kofi's clean? - get him out! Expose the UN for the cowardly criminal hellhole it's become |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-03 10:59:33 AM |
| #15 I've been thinking of making a T-shirt, but can't settle on the slogan. "US out of UN" or "UN out of US" Rantburgers? |
| Posted by: growler 2004-05-03 10:56:49 AM |
| #14 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-03 10:56:00 AM |
| #13 Mike if Kofi had a hair on his ass he would have been screaming far and wide for something to be done.Yet I don't recall hearing him say a thing. Same goes for Rawanda. |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-05-03 10:47:01 AM |
| #12 The obstacles were two Security Council members with veto power. I know. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Insert quote about good men doing nothing here. |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks 2004-05-03 10:24:12 AM |
| #11 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-03 9:56:56 AM |
| #10 Kofi Annan is an executive who basically only carries out the will of the United Nations members, especially the will of the Security Council. Two members of the Security Council -- Russia and China -- consistently vetoed or threatened to veto effective measures to counter Serbia. I think that's basically true; it's also true that the stuff needed to get things done in the face of these obstacles is called leadership. |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks 2004-05-03 9:34:17 AM |
| #9 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-03 9:00:47 AM |
| #8 Mike,nobody saw 9/11 coming.On the other hand I saw the Ethnic clensing and massacre of Srebrenice plus the Rawadan Genocide happening before my eyes on the news. If I could see these crimes aginst humanity happening why couldnt he? Are you going to sit there and tell me Kofi doesn't have a television, doesn't own a radio,and never buys a newspaper. How come he absolutly will not acknowlege much less do anything about the slaughter happening right now in the Sudan? Why is it that every place U.N.Peacekeepers(talk about wrong terminalogy!)are sent they do nothing? What about Iraq?As soon as the U.N. compound got boombed they couildn't run away fast enough. |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-05-03 7:58:33 AM |
| #7 We all owe Annan a debt of gratitude. If Kerry continues to tout the UN as the way to win the war in Iraq, he could go down on Annan's sinking ship. If he acknowledges what a farce the UN has become, then his anti-American activities will make him look unfit to lead Americans into battle. Annan's done. He's finished and he's taken the UN credibility along with him. He and Chirac and the others have already been exposed. There will be no putting a lid on this scandal - no matter how much the press tries to ignore it. In fact, each day the press ignores it, their credibility sinks even further. Yumm...toast for breakfast. That sounds good. |
| Posted by: Anny Emous 2004-05-03 7:55:00 AM |
| #6 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-03 7:48:41 AM |
| #5 One of the two great disasters for which he [Kofi Annan] bears a large share of the blame is the Serbian slaughter of 7000 people in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, perhaps the worst massacre in post-war Europe. .... they failed to sound the alarm properly and did nothing to intervene. The Dutch fired not a single shot. NATO air power could have halted the Serbs, but Annan did not ask for NATO intervention. This is similar to the argument that George Bush "bears a large share of the blame" for the September 11 attacks. Some one man in charge was supposed to foresee dastardly attacks and was supposed to adroitly marshal preventative measures. In this argument here, NATO's failure to intervene is the fault of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Dutch contingent's small and weak force is the fault of Kofi Annan. The Srebrenice massacre is the fault of Kofi Annan. He could have prevented it, but he didn't. He "bears a large share of the blame." If he had ordered the Dutch soldiers to fire a shot, the massacre would not have happened. If he had asked NATO to drop some bombs, the massacre would not have happened. The article ignores Annan's actions, after the massacre, to support an effective international response. He receives no credit here for anything at all. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-05-03 6:31:55 AM |
| #4 I've said this earlier, so can I say it again? Thanks.#1 Good Lord man, they are both pathetic. Equally so I think. I wouldn't worry about the dork Wilson. Wait, they're both dorks and equally pathetic. What is bothersome is that the slimy snake Annie is going to slither out of this thing.You just watch as things unfold. I'll bet somehow, some way, by some general agreement the sanctity of the world body must be preserved and that is what will happen. I believe we'll see people, influential people, step forward in defence of those bastards and the whole thing will evaporate. I hope not,but if it does I hope someone has the moxie to formulate a petition to stop all taxes going to the UN. We ain't powerless ya know.Chine |
| Posted by: Chiner 2004-05-03 5:27:17 AM |
| #3 If Annan was WHITE, it would have been OUSTED from its cushy job long ago. The one mistake President Bush should acknowledge was the decision he took to allow that Hutu-loving fecesstain a SECOND term as Secretary General. |
| Posted by: Garrison 2004-05-03 4:49:40 AM |
| #2 Ratko Mladic, the Serb commander and war criminal, deported the women and children under the eyes of the UN Quite literally, in fact. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-03 4:39:47 AM |
| #1 My, how far the UN has fallen... from Lie to Hammarskjold to U-Thant to Waldheim to Boutros-Ghali to Annan. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-03 3:06:12 AM |