Kofi Annan's second term

By Chinmaya R. Gharekhan

MR. KOFI ANNAN'S election to a second term as Secretary-General of the United Nations was expected from the first day of his first term. Two terms have been the norm and one term the exception. Mr. Annan's predecessor, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, was denied a second term; he was the victim partly of American election politics and partly of his intellectual hauteur. In the case of Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, Mr. Boutros-Ghali's predecessor, the Ambassadors of the five permanent members of the Security Council had gone to his residence and asked him to accept one more term.

What was unprecedented in Mr. Annan's case was the timing of the election. The Security Council and the General Assembly acted on the re-election full six months before the expiry of the first term. Various theories are doing the rounds in the U.N. corridors about the reason for this haste. One view ascribes this to the personal initiative of the President of the Security Council for the month of June who, it is said, was anxious for a little personal publicity and also wished to make amends for at least acquiescing in letting his name being mentioned as a possible candidate for the top job.

The most plausible explanation, however, is the one most widely accepted. Mr. Annan continues to enjoy popularity and acceptance among all the regions as well as with a large majority of the staff in the secretariat. It was evident, as the staff and sundry Ambassadors lined up to congratulate him as he was on his way, after his re-election, from the General Assembly to his office on the 38th floor, that the man was genuinely liked.

One essential requirement for the occupant of the office of U.N. Secretary-General is that he, or she, must have better than working relations with the permanent members of the Security Council. While a Secretary-General might be innovative in making the organisation more people-oriented, etc., his ultimate test lies not so much in promoting human rights as in the field of maintaining international peace and security. There is no way he can do that unless he has the support of the P-5. The reverse is not necessarily true, as Kosovo has shown. Mr. Annan, at times, is portrayed as being too anxious to keep on the right side of the Americans. He ought not to be held to a standard higher than the member-states whom he is elected to serve. Mr. Boutros- Ghali's example showed that projecting an independent position not only does not serve the personal cause of the incumbent but also does not help the organisation very much.

The American media does the Secretary-General no service by over- praising him and by projecting him as having done all in his power to be sensitive to American priorities. The U.S. has also failed him by not paying its arrears amounting to more that $1.5 billions. At the General Assembly session in the autumn of the millennium year, the Americans prevailed upon the rest of the membership to reduce their share in the U.N. budget from 25 to 22 per cent. This was not an undesirable development in itself. There was, however, a commitment from the U.S. that it would make a substantial payment towards its arrears before the end of 2000. To date, it has not kept its word. The U.S.' humiliating failure to win a seat on the Human Rights Commission in Geneva has provided the American Congress as additional pretext to renege on obligations.

Incidentally, the media in the U.S. and many other countries have described American discomfiture as all the more galling since even Sudan, blacklisted by the U.S. as a state sponsoring terrorism, got elected, suggesting that the U.S. was defeated by Sudan. This is a distortion of the situation. The fact is that the U.S was not competing against Sudan; if it were, it would have surely won. Election to these bodies are held on a regional basis. Sudan was the endorsed candidate of the African group. The Americans did not manage to win the endorsement of the Western European group of which they are a member. So they had to contest against fellow western liberal democracies such as Sweden and Austria who refused to concede to the U.S. pre-eminence in championing human rights.

According to many delegations and secretariat sources, the Asian group was the last to come on board to endorse Mr. Annan for a second term. The Asians realised early enough the futility of contesting against Mr. Annan. What they were hoping for, and tried for, was an endorsement of their region's claim to the office after five years. This they failed to achieve. The Asians, of course, will never be able to agree on one single candidate even if the rest of the world were to accept their claim, which they do not. The East Europeans, in particular, lobbied vigorously and successfully with the Africans not to make any commitment to the Asian group for 2006. Even in 1996, the East Europeans had put on record their claim to the Secretary- Generalship in 2001, since technically the Africans would have had their two terms by 2001. As for 2006, no one is prepared, at this early stage of the game - yes, the game has already started - to completely rule out an unprecedented third term for Mr. Annan.

Annan's sponsorship of doctrines of doubtful legitimacy such as humanitarian intervention earned him credit with western countries and did not do him much damage with developing ones. His espousal of social issues such as HIV-AIDS won universal acclaim. Many delegations are not happy at the growing tendency among the P-5 to take purely social issues to the Security Council. This concern is justified since it is the developing countries which will be the targets of these deliberations whereas the permanent members will manage to avoid discussion of any subject not to their liking.

It was, of course, entirely appropriate for the General Assembly to hold a special session on the subject of HIV-AIDS during the last week of June. The Indian NGOs were very active. The fact that India's official viewpoint was presented by Ms. Sonia Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, was commented upon favourably by many as testifying to the maturity of Indian democracy. AIDS has still not assumed epidemic dimensions in India since the official criterion is that at least 2 per cent of the population has to be afflicted whereas so far, the percentage in India is just about 0.5 per cent. Given our numbers, however, the situation is truly alarming. The Secretary-General has set a target of $ 7 billion to $ 10 billion every year to tackle the disease against the current availability of just under $2 billion.

That the voice of the people can make a difference was demonstrated by the U.S. Secretary of State, Gen. Colin Powell, having to declare from the podium of the General Assembly that America would be making additional pledges, besides the $200 million announced earlier; American and other NGOs had severely criticised the pledge of $200 million as being grossly inadequate. Even an individual entrepreneur such as Mr. Bill Gates, wealthy as he is, has announced a contribution of $100 million.

Every Secretary-General since Mr. Perez de Cuellar has paid at least two official visits to India. Mr. Annan has been twice to India and will certainly visit our shores again in the next five years. During his visit to Delhi in March 2001, his remarks on Kashmir were widely appreciated. India would do well to keep the dialogue with the Secretary-General open at a high political level and to accord to him the recognition comparable to what the rest of the international community extends to him.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Time to return to the Valley
Next     : Saving Silent Valley