inside the glass house

Is Annan interfering in US affairs?
NEW YORK - As chief administrative officer of the 191-member United Nations, the Secretary-General is not expected to play politics -- or interfere in the internal affairs of any member state.

But still he has the legitimate right to express his views, however unpalatable, in his capacity as head of an international organisation. The thin line of distinction has often been blurred. But one of the skills of a competent Secretary-General is to diplomatically walk that delicate line without making political enemies.

As an anonymous wit once remarked: "A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip." The Secretary-General is expected to be the ultimate diplomat who has to deal with 191 member states -- at times almost simultaneously.

If a Secretary-General is up for re-election, he always plays it safe not to antagonise any of the member states, least of all the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, namely the US, Britain, France, Russia and China.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali failed to win a second term and because he irritated a single member state: the US. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority in the Security Council voted for him (garnering 14 out of 15 votes), he was drummed out of office when the US cast its veto against him.

In an institution that believes in multi-party democracy and majority rule, Boutros-Ghali was deprived of a second term because of a single veto. So much for Jeffersonian democracy.

A Secretary-General, who is not speculating on his next election, is most likely to be more forthright and independent minded than one who has nightmares of his re-election.

This is more so the reason why some activists have proposed that a UN Secretary-General should serve only one term -- possibly a single, non-renewable seven-year term instead of the current limitless five-year terms.

Kofi Annan, the present incumbent who is on his second five-year term, has apparently no plans to run again when he completes his assignment in December 2006.

So, obviously, he also has no reason to curry favour with any member states, including the veto-wielders in the Security Council. In recent months, Annan has been more outspoken than ever before prompting speculation that he is definitely not running for a third term and therefore has nothing to lose by speaking his mind in public.

Last month he angered the Bush administration by saying that the US military invasion of Iraq was "illegal" and that it violated the UN charter provoking negative criticisms from the White House and from US politicians.

White House Spokeswoman Claire Buchan said US officials disagree with Annan. "We previously made clear that coalition forces had authority (to invade Iraq) under several UN resolutions."

"If Kofi had his way, (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein would still be in power," said Senator John Cornyn, a member of the US Senate Armed Services Committee. Annan has also provoked the Bush administration by saying that the war on Iraq has increased terrorism, not decreased.

At a press briefing last week, one of the UN correspondents asked Annan pointedly: "I know that the UN policy is to say that you don't meddle in US internal affairs. Basically, you said recently that the war in Iraq was illegal. Before that you said that terrorism is on the rise, contradictory to what President Bush has said. That is being interpreted as you batting for (Democratic presidential candidate) John Kerry. Is that the case?"

Annan, who usually keeps his cool even under the most trying circumstances, was testy this time around."I think you answered your own question (that UN policy is not to interfere in internal affairs). You don't want to pull me in; why are you pulling me in?"

But then he added: "I think, when I make these comments, I make them from my own knowledge and from my own experience. I'm not saying them to support one side or the other. As Secretary-General, I talk to lots of people, I travel the world, and I observe."

"And I have comments that I made, and these are comments that I would have made whether there were elections or not. So don't infer anything from the comments and the observations that I make," he said.

Meanwhile, Annan is also refusing to send international staffers to organise the elections in Iraq thereby generating anger not only from the Bush administration but also from the US-installed interim government in Baghdad.

The US wants elections in Iraq as scheduled in January -- come hell or high water -- just to prove that it has brought "democracy" to Iraq. And it wants UN participation to provide legitimacy to those elections.

Annan told reporters last week that he does not plan to send his staff into an increasingly violent Iraq unless there is "genuine improvement in the security environment or solid arrangements for the protection of the staff."

The world body now has only 35 international staffers in Iraq, of which six are election experts. In contrast, the UN had more than 600 international staffers monitoring elections in Afghanistan last week.

The UN staff union, on the other hand, is not only advising staffers to keep out of Iraq but also asking Annan to withdraw immediately all existing staff in the strife-torn country.

Back to Columns