For giggles: Mr. Annan's opinion piece published in the WSJ's dead tree version today, on page A14. Uncut, and awaiting your comments. Enjoy!
The U.N. needs to be reformed, but it still performs a crucial function.
| Doorstops perform crucial functions. Toilet paper performs a crucial function. Should I go on? |
 In the past year I have read many attacks on the United Nations--quite a few, but by no means all, in the pages of this newspaper.
| ... most of them, in fact, fully justified. |
That pains me, because I have served the U.N. all my life. I have done, and am still doing, everything I can to correct its imperfections, and to improve and strengthen it. And I believe profoundly in the importance of that task, because a strong U.N. is of vital importance to humanity.
| A "UN" is an idea that people have actually been striving for, for a couple thousand years. Alexander tried it, and it didn't work. It degenerated into competing successor states. The Pax Romana lasted for a few generations, then fell apart into bickering, then civil war, then the Dark Ages. The Holy Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years, and never really amounted to much. The French Empire attempted to unite Europe but didn't even make it to Napoleon II. The League of Nations doesn't receive the amount of mockery and derision it deserved. And now the United Nations, a good idea whose time is gone, begins its own long process of disintegration, broken up by its own internal faults, another paving stone on the road to Hell. |
When the appalling disaster of the tsunami struck in the Indian Ocean, killing at least 150,000 people and destroying the livelihood of millions, President Bush acted quickly to form a core group of nations with available military forces in the region. That was the right thing to do. It got the relief efforts off to a flying start, which was essential. But a week later, when all involved came together in Jakarta to plan and coordinate the multinational effort, everyone, including the U.S., agreed that the U.N. should take the lead. Why? For two reasons.
| Blinding speed of reaction isn't one of them, I'll bet... |
First, the U.N. had the necessary skills.
| It's just a bit sluggish in its response. Kofi, have you ever seen a body that's been lying in the Southeast Asian sun for a week? |
Its Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which I formed in 1997 soon after I took office, is designed exactly for the role that was required--a light structure, not getting in anyone's way or doing their job for them, but able quickly to locate needed supplies and contact whatever organization can deliver them.
| All supervisors, no worker bees... |
But second, and even more important, everyone was willing to work with the U.N.: the governments and people of the affected countries, the donors, and the nonprofit organizations whose role is so essential in all emergencies, great and small. All of them recognize that the U.N. is the right body to lead, because it is in no one's pocket. It belongs to the world.
| Gotta disagree with every statement in that paragraph, I'm afraid. The governments, the people, the donors, the nonprofits, didn't care who was supervising. Lucifer could have come flapping out of Hell on great bat wings, accompanied by battalions of demons, and if he'd been bringing groceries and medicines and helping to treat the injured, he'd have been accomodated. The U.N. has no particular legitimacy that it doesn't earn. At times in the past it has earned it, though not to the extent it talks up. But legitimacy can also be spent: when the expectation becomes that the U.N. supervisory class is going to fly in first class, stay in the local 5-star hotels, diddle a few of the local schoolchildren, and siphon off a heavy percentage of the money flowing to the victims, then the world is just as well off without the U.N. And in fact, without a U.N., blocs of nations could just as easily, and probably more cheaply, establish regional disaster relief mechanisms. |
Another example of the U.N.'s importance--a more difficult one, because of its sharply divisive political context--is Iraq. Indisputably, the war in Iraq two years ago caused many people on all sides to lose faith in the U.N. Those who favored military action against Saddam Hussein were disappointed that the Security Council did not--as they saw it-- have the courage to enforce its own resolutions.
| Why make them, if you're not going to enforce them? That episode enhanced the U.N.'s reputation as a debating society that values the discussions more than the results. |
And those who opposed it were frustrated at the U.N.'s inability to prevent a war they thought unnecessary or premature.
| ... and that heavily impacted their profits. |
And yet, when the U.S. and its allies wanted an Iraqi body with broad national and international support to help them run the country, they turned to the U.N. and my special representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, for help and advice. He persuaded L. Paul Bremer that it should be a Governing Council, not a mere advisory body, and he persuaded key Iraqi leaders such as Ayatollah Sistani to let their followers join it. Sergio and 21 of his colleagues paid with their lives for their courage and determination to help the Iraqi people--as, alas, do too many brave servants of the U.N. whom the world hears little about.
| Interesting interpretation. The U.N. was invited in by Bremer after fairly extended agitation by the same people who didn't want to see the war come in the first place, and who were bitching that they were unfairly excluded from the postwar contracts. Sergio and 21 of his colleagues paid with their lives for not accepting the security arrangements the U.S. offered. |
Last year, when the Coalition wanted to transfer power to an interim Iraqi government, they turned again to the U.N. for help. They knew that if the U.N. were involved in choosing it the new government would have a much better chance of being accepted as legitimate and sovereign.
| They knew the same bunch — lump them collectively as the mostly non-Islamic opposition — demanded U.N. involvement and would loudly decry any election as illegitimate unless it was blessed by U.N. "monitors," who ended up operating, if I recall, from Jordan, presumably using very powerful telescopes and remotely controlled armored cameras. |
Both Iraqis and Americans also turned to the U.N. for help in organizing last month's elections. The U.N. helped to draft the electoral law and the law on political parties, to choose and train the members of the independent electoral commission and hundreds of election organizers (who in turn trained thousands of others), and to draw up the voters' lists. It was also there to give advice on the actual conduct of the election, the vote count, and the announcement of the results.
| You mean it was supervising the entire operation? Right. That's why we didn't see the worker bees. |
Again, we had the necessary expertise--we have organized or helped organize elections in 92 countries, including most recently Afghanistan and Palestine. But even more important was the legitimacy that our involvement brought. The results of an election organized by the Coalition powers, or by Iraqis that they had chosen, would have been less widely accepted in the outside world, and probably in Iraq as well.
| I'd put that down as a U.N. "success" in its own right: by loudly honking its own horn, it does manage to give itself something of a cachet. However, objectively, I'd say the U.S., with over 200 years of experience in organizing elections, referenda, town hall meetings, pissing contests, and fist fights, has a lot more experience in the matter than the U.N., and could probably figure how to do it better. We also, despite the accusations of many people trying to get extended mileage out of badly worn premises, and the attempts of those who desire to corrupt the system, conduct our elections with a fairly high degree of honesty, unlike many of the United Nations. |
Now Iraqis have their own elected Transitional National Assembly, and will soon have an elected government answerable to it.
| And we owe it all to the U.N.? To quote the eminent Cuban philospher, R. Ricardo: "I dun thin so." |
The assembly has to draft a constitution acceptable to all Iraqis, and the government has to isolate its most violent opponents by winning the trust of groups who did not vote in the elections--mainly Sunni Arabs--and bringing them into the political process.
| Or by killing them in large numbers and by painful methods. That works, too. |
Here too, the U.N. can help--and it will. We can give expert advice, if asked, on the drafting of the constitution.
| ... since the U.N. constitution works so well and is so universally adhered to. Oh. Wait. No U.N. constitution. Then how about the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights? Everybody adheres to that, right? Come to think of it, by what right are the U.N.'s experts considered experts? Who picks them? |
We can reach out to those groups--mainly Sunni Arabs--who stayed away from the elections, for whatever reason, but are willing to pursue their goals through peaceful negotiation and dialogue.
| Well. Go on. Let's see you reach. From Jordan. Or Turtle Bay. |
And we can bring together the world community in a joint effort to help Iraq rebuild itself and heal the wounds of dictatorship and war.
| And this'll be ready when? With, perhaps, the same lightening response time employed with disaster relief? Quite to my surprise, it's been almost two years since Sammy left office in the dark of night, taking with him only a few close friends, some ammunition, and the national treasury. What has the U.N. being doing in the meantime? |
Even the scars left by past differences can be turned into today's opportunities. Precisely because the United Nations did not agree on some earlier actions in Iraq, today it has much needed credibility with, and access to, Iraqi groups who must agree to join in the new political process if peace is to prevail.
| That's why those Iraqi groups killed Sergio. |
The U.N. can be useful because it is seen as independent and impartial.
| Or it can be seen as useless because it is seen as a corrupt tool of dictatorships, hopping on whichever Liberation™ bandwagon happens to be fashionable at the moment. Durban occurred before 9-11 came along, and it already showed a disgusting face of the U.N., not one that civilized people would want to stare at for long. |
If it ever came to be seen as a mere instrument or prolongation of U.S. foreign policy, it would be worthless to everyone.
| If it is seen as a mere instrument of anti-Americanism it becomes equally useless. When your honest broker turns dishonest, you fire him — or have him shot. You don't try and coax him into changing his ways. Trust is like virginity, Kofi. |
I could go on.
| But not very convincingly. |
I could speak also about the 18 peace operations we have in war-torn countries around the world, and the tens of millions of homeless and hungry people, over and above those affected by the tsunami, to whom we are bringing relief.
| Perhaps we should also discuss the Rwandan genocide, the Darfur genocide that's not admitted to be a genocide, and the forgotten slaughters of the past — anybody remember Katanga? How about the Paleostinian refugee camps, now edging up to their 60th year of existence — could we maybe put a sunset date on future humanitarian efforts like that? |
Indeed, when ill-informed critics try to cut the U.N. off at the knees, the people they hurt most are not diplomats or bureaucrats but innocent people caught in war or poverty, in desperate need of the world's help.
| "Do it for the children!" After all, with tens of millions served, as only the U.N. can serve them, really a few incidents of food-for-nookie don't amount to much. Except to the people involved, and they're mostly just natives, who don't feel pain or shame like we do. |
Some decry what they see as a lack of principle in U.N. decision-making, pointing to the compromises that inevitably emerge from a body of 191 member states. Anyone who attacks the U.N. for failing to serve the global interest should, as part of that exercise, critically examine the decisions of each nation within the body. They will find that there is plenty of criticism to go round. But they should also remember that the U.N., like the U.S. and other great democracies, is a work in progress--always struggling to lessen the gap between reality and the ideals which gave it birth. That such a gap exists is all the more reason why those who value freedom and peace should work to build the U.N. up, not tear it down.
| Not necessarily. See my previous comments on honest brokers. If you're an honest broker among competing interests, then being on the wrong end of a decision occasionally is something that can be lived with. But if you're on the other side, and on the other side consistently, then we have no use for you. Piss off. Go away. Move the whole shebang to Lagos or Khartoum, and let the Soddies support you. |
Of course the U.N. is far from perfect--even if some of the recent allegations made about it have been overblown. The interim report of Paul Volcker's independent inquiry has helped put the Oil For Food program in perspective. Some of the more hyperbolic assertions about it have been proven untrue.
| And some have proven to be true, despite being unbelievable. Old lady falling down an elevator shaft, indeed! I wouldn't put that in a bad novel. |
Yet I am the first to admit that real and troubling failures--ethical lapses and lax management--have been brought to light.
| Then why'd you wait for everybody else to admit it before admitting it yourself? You, as secretary general, had the resources to uncover the problem and deal with it. Your virginity's gone, Kofi. |
I am determined, with the help of member states, to carry through the management reforms which are clearly called for by Mr. Volcker's findings.
| "There went the horse. Let's lock the barn door, quick." |
Even more shocking are widespread cases of sexual exploitation and abuse of minors by peacekeepers and U.N. officials in the Congo and other African countries. Both the U.N. Secretariat and the member states have been too slow to realize the extent of this problem, take effective measures to end it, and punish the culprits. But we are now doing so, and I am determined to see it through.
| ... now that they've been brought to light by other parties. What hasn't been brought to light yet, Kofi? What are you doing to deal with it? |
In my eight years as secretary-general, I had already done a lot--with the support of member states, often led by the U.S.--to make the U.N. more coherent and efficient. Now we need to make it more transparent and accountable--not only to diplomats representing member governments, but also directly to the public. The U.N. cannot expect to survive into the 21st century unless ordinary people throughout the world feel that it does something for them--helping to protect them against conflict (both civil and international), but also against poverty, hunger, disease and the erosion of their natural environment.
| I can see no evidence that the UN actually does such things, though it sometimes makes the pretense of supervising those who do... |
And in recent years, bitter experience has taught us that a world in which whole countries are left prey to misgovernment and destitution is not safe for anyone. We must turn the tide against disease and hunger, as well as against terrorism, the proliferation of deadly weapons and crime--starting, urgently, with decisions from the Security Council to end the abominable crimes in Darfur and bring war criminals to international justice.
| Sudan is a pipsqueak, ninth-rate power with little pretense of legitimacy and less pretense of effectiveness. Yet they're ignoring you, Kofi. They're telling you to piss off. They won't have you "interfering in their internal affairs." And you won't. |
This September, we have a real opportunity to make the U.N. more useful to all its members. Leaders from all over the world are coming to a U.N. summit in New York. I shall put before them an agenda of bold but achievable proposals for making the U.N. work better, and the world fairer and safer. I know that Americans want to do that as much as any people on earth.
| That would seem to imply that other people on earth have become less and less interested in the actual workings of the U.N., glancing at it only occasionally to see if they've got a bearded lady, and India rubber man, or Jojo the Dog-faced Boy on display. The U.N. has ceased to be a usable institution. |
More than any other people, they have the power to do it--if they listen to and work with others, and take the lead in a concerted effort. I believe that they will give us that lead. I look forward to September with hope and excitement.
Mr. Annan is secretary-general of the U.N. |