Annan: diplomatic tightrope walk to Nobel peace prize

As the first Secretary-General Trygve Lie of Norway (1946-1953) once remarked, the office of the chief executive officer of the UN is "the most impossible job on this earth."

Although he is customarily voted by the entire membership of the UN, the election of the Secretary-General is largely in the hands of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council _ the US, Britain, France, China and Russia.

Every Secretary-General has had to play politics for his survival _ or to ensure a second-term in office.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was vetoed by a single country, the US, despite the fact he had positive votes from 14 of the 15 members of the Security Council.

The US proved beyond any reasonable doubt that its veto power will decide who should _ or who shouldn't _ be the Secretary General of the United Nations that year. 

China exercised its veto 16 times against Kurt Waldheim of Austria when he ran for a third term in 1981, eventually resulting in the election of Javier Perez de Cecllar of Peru (1982-1991) as Secretary-General.

Since Annan has already been elected for a second five-year term, far in advance of December 31 when he completes his current five-year term, he has the added advantage of being able to speak his mind because he is not seeking votes for a third term.

Since he is almost a "free man", he has the ability to be outspoken and forthright, without having to please every single member state.

Enrique ter Horst of Venezuela, a former Assistant Secretary-General, says "the world expects a UN Secretary-General to act as a moral beacon and speak out forcefully against outrageous behaviour" _ irrespective of whether he is speaking against the US, Britain, France, China, Russia, or even Israel.

"This will require that the Secretary-General stick his neck out, publicly, if necessary," he said, in an article in the International Herald Tribune last July. "He (Annan) has the chance of really making a difference, a big difference."

To his credit, it should be said that Annan has occasionally been candid about his assessment of ongoing political problems _ but exercising his own measured diplomatic niceties.

Last week he expressed reservations over an implicit US threat to exercise its right to extend its military attacks on countries beyond Afghanistan.

In a letter to the Security Council, the newly-appointed US Ambassador John Negroponte said the US had the right to attack other unnamed terrorist states. 

The State Department's list of seven "terrorist states" includes Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, North Korea and Cuba, five of which are Muslim nations.

"There is one line in that letter that disturbed some of us," Annan told reporters four days before he was named co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

"I think the one sentence which has caused some anxiety amongst the membership _ which I've also asked about _ was the question that they (the Americans) may find it necessary to go after other organisations and other States," he added.

At the same time, he tempered his criticism by saying that he was still happy that the US had indicated this is not a "predictor of any intentions" that Washington intends to take.

"Basically, it is a statement that they are at early stages (of their military operations) and keeping their options open," he added.

At least on two sensitive political issues _ high level corruption and military dictatorships _ he takes an uncompromising stand.

Last year, he lambasted African leaders who line their pockets with public funds: a criticism applicable to most developing nations, including Sri Lanka.

Addressing a press conference in London, he characterised Africa as a continent suffering from multiple crises _ ecological, economic, social and political.

But still, he said, "billions of dollars of public funds continue to be stashed away by some African leaders _ even while roads crumble, health systems fail, and school children have neither books nor desks nor teachers, and phones do not work."

Annan also criticised African leaders who overthrow democratic regimes to grab power by military means.

When he was in Zimbabwe for a summit meeting of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) four years ago, Annan had proposed that no African military leader should be permitted to speak at OAU meetings. 

"I think it was the first time anyone had spoken like that at an OAU meeting _ and I recall the OAU Secretary-General (Salim Ahmed Salim) saying that I was lucky, because anybody else would have have been lynched for saying so," Annan added.

But later he was delighted to find that the OAU summit in Algiers had unanimously decided to bar all military leaders from future meetings.

Last year, Annan said he was hoping that the General Assembly would follow in the footsteps of the OAU and bar military dictators from addressing the world body.