UN Secretary-General Annan Must Resign

This journal firmly believes that politicians of whatever stripe and responsibility owe it to their constituents to resign gracefully when they have failed to discharge their duties. In earlier editions, the Kensington Review has said that numerous members of the American cabinet, the British Prime Minister, and the President of Venezuela should all hand in their papers. To this company one must now add the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. He has become an obstacle to maintaining the institution’s credibility and value, and the last service he can perform for those who believe in the efficacy of international organizations is to depart.

First and foremost, it is his duty to oversee the proper operation of the bureaucracy of the UN, its Secretariat. His New York underlings have just passed a vote of no confidence in him and his top deputies. While the Secretary-General’s apologists say that it is a simple case of worker-management bickering, one cannot recall a vote of no confidence against Trygve Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld, U Thant or Kurt Waldheim. But then, none of them seemed complicit in covering up sexual misconduct, abuse and rape -- although Secretary-General Waldheim served the Hitlerite regime.

This pales into insignificance, except for those raped by UN “peacekeepers” in the Congo (imagine if 150 complaints of sexual abuse had turned up against US troops in Iraq), when one considers the vast corruption that seems to underlie the Oil-for-Food program run by the UN for the benefit of Iraq – or more accurately, for the benefit of those who raped Iraq during the Saddamite rule there. Even the Secretary-General’s son, Kojo Annan, had his snout in the trough. While no father is responsible for the actions of his grown son, even the appearance of nepotism and influence peddling undermines the UN, which needs all the help it can get.

And one must remember Darfur. The UN, which is often unable to act unless its members acknowledge the problem, has done less than nothing in ending the killings and general mayhem in this region of Sudan. When the American Secretary of State calls the situation “genocide,” the UN has some kind of backing with which to work. There are no blue helmets in the area, and what peacekeeping there is falls to the African Union (formerly the Organization of African Unity). As for the humanitarian efforts of the UN, it has been too little, too late.

The Secretary-General’s job is not one of power so much as it is a position of influence. Mr. Annan and his predecessors have not been able to command. They have succeeded when they have cajoled. Theodore Roosevelt would have described it as a “bully pulpit” far more so than the American presidency. The Secretary-General can shame the powerful into doing right, but to do so, he must have the moral standing to appeal to the better angels of our nature (thanks, Mr. Lincoln for the apt phrase). Mr. Annan has none, and he must go.


© Copyright 2004 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.


Home