Amazon.com Widgets

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Kofi Annan's speech today was remarkable for several reasons, and in sum the day can only be seen as a positive one at the UN for President Bush. Far from sticking to a staunch anti-Bush line, The Secretary-General did express concern about recent events, but he went on to make some far more interesting remarks.

Whether anything comes of it or not, Kofi Annan gave lip-service to the idea that it's time for the United Nations to face up to its failings and consider some changes. Changes in the way it does business, in how it views its mission and even its structure.

This self-examination is a direct result of the actions of George W. Bush. When he appeared before the UN last year and gave the member states the opportunity to save the institution - to prove its worth and relevance - they proved themselves not up to the task. They played their usual institutional games and failed at the task.

Now, many people, pundits, news sources and governments have blamed George W. Bush and his actions for that failure. But he wasn't the one who failed to cooperate with 17 Security Council resolutions, who stonewalled the inspectors, who gassed his people, who murdered in the 100's of thousands, who payed the bombers, who jailed the children, who drained the swamp to kill a culture, who maimed, who raped, who tortured and threatened and invaded.

George Bush stuck to his guns, maintained a consistently principled line and gave the body, including the Security Council itself the chance to do the right thing. The trouble was, even members of the Security Council itself were at cross-purposes. Some members would rather have coddled the dictator for pay and pander to the masses (the "Arab Street" for instance) than stand up and be counted by doing the right thing. To its cresit, America hung strong, and when permanent members of the Security Council are at cross-purposes, the structure of the UN cannot stand. It simply wasn't designed to do so. That's why the veto exists, because of the recognition that if an event is to happen, the power and influence of those five nations is such that if any one actively disagrees, it cannot occur within the structure of the UN.

Bush got the blame, but he was in the right, and today's statement by Kofi Annan demonstrates that as a fact, because today he admitted that the UN must pursue change or risk the very irrelevancy that George Bush warned it would encounter, and for the reasons George Bush stated they would.

Annan:

...Since this Organisation was founded, States have generally sought to deal with threats to the peace through containment and deterrence, by a system based on collective security and the United Nations Charter.

Article 51 of the Charter prescribes that all States, if attacked, retain the inherent right of self-defence. But until now it has been understood that when States go beyond that, and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an “armed attack” with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group.

Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, States have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other States, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed.

According to this argument, States are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions.

This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last fifty-eight years.

My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification.

But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.

Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded...

Remarkable. Annan is not simply decrying "unliateralism," or more accurately, "preemption," he's saying that the UN must begin to address the reasons why such actions may become necessary. He's not decrying the principle of preemption, he's saying that the UN ought to be the ones doing it!

...Now we must decide whether it is possible to continue on the basis agreed then, or whether radical changes are needed.

And we must not shy away from questions about the adequacy, and effectiveness, of the rules and instruments at our disposal.

Among those instruments, none is more important than the Security Council itself.

In my recent report on the implementation of the Millennium Declaration, I drew attention to the urgent need for the Council to regain the confidence of States, and of world public opinion – both by demonstrating its ability to deal effectively with the most difficult issues, and by becoming more broadly representative of the international community as a whole, as well as the geopolitical realities of today.

The Council needs to consider how it will deal with the possibility that individual States may use force “pre-emptively” against perceived threats.

Its members may need to begin a discussion on the criteria for an early authorisation of coercive measures to address certain types of threats – for instance, terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction.

And they still need to engage in serious discussions of the best way to respond to threats of genocide or other comparable massive violations of human rights – an issue which I raised myself from this podium in 1999. Once again this year, our collective response to events of this type – in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in Liberia – has been hesitant and tardy.

As for the composition of the Council, that has been on the agenda of this Assembly for over a decade. Virtually all Member States agree that the Council should be enlarged, but there is no agreement on the details.

I respectfully suggest to you, Excellencies, that in the eyes of your peoples the difficulty of reaching agreement does not excuse your failure to do so. If you want the Council's decisions to command greater respect, particularly in the developing world, you need to address the issue of its composition with greater urgency.

But the Security Council is not the only institution that needs strengthening. As you know, I am doing my best to make the Secretariat more effective – and I look to this Assembly to support my efforts.

Indeed, in my report I also suggested that this Assembly itself needs to be strengthened, and that the role of the Economic and Social Council – and the role of the United Nations as a whole in economic and social affairs, including its relationship to the Bretton Woods institutions –needs to be re-thought and reinvigorated.

I even suggested that the role of the Trusteeship Council could be reviewed, in light of new kinds of responsibility that you have given to the United Nations in recent years.

In short, Excellencies, I believe the time is ripe for a hard look at fundamental policy issues, and at the structural changes that may be needed in order to strengthen them.

History is a harsh judge: it will not forgive us if we let this moment pass...

Now not just George Bush, but Annan himself is saying it. It's time for the UN to make some perhaps radical changes or risk becoming even more irrelevant. Whether or not the UN can do it, or whether those changes will be meaningful or even helpful is another question. The fact that Kofi Annan got up and made the speech he did today, calling for the things he did is a vindication for George W. Bush and for American leadership.

2 Comments

Annan speech was more of the same, doing nothing to resolve the inertia of the UN or altering its inherent structure that prevents it from dealing with rogue or police states. It was a call for yet more money, more UN control and more yak, yak at taxpayer expense rather than actually confronting states that threaten world peace. If anyone believes in Annan's fantasies they must be the stripped pants cookie pushers at State.

"the stripped pants cookie pushers at State"

Heheheheh.

I agree that I doubt anything significant will change - I don't see how it could. But the mere fact that Annan came out and gave lip service for the need for change is at least a rhetorical success for Bush.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Search


Archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]