The outgoing UN secretary-general bowed out with a pugnacious speech at the Truman Library in the US, yet the world remains divided on the worth of his legacy, writes Gamal Nkrumah Another page of history has been turned at the United Nations. During a time of high drama, Kofi Annan's exit came as something of an anti-climax, as he marked the end of his tenure with a farewell speech at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. Characteristically, he remained the shrewd diplomat whose language was couched in diplomatic niceties. Nevertheless he marked his departure with a sharp jab at the foreign policy of the United States. Ban Ki Moon, a former Korean foreign minister, will officially take up Annan's post on 1 January. On the face of it, Annan was civil enough not to mention specific individuals in the Bush administration. But, there was no mistaking the fact that his overall tone was critical. During his term in office, Annan was regarded as a lackey of the US, making him somewhat unpopular among the public at large in the Arab and Muslim worlds. On Iraq, many felt it took him far too long to openly condemn the invasion -- when he finally plucked up the courage to show his opposition, he said, "From the charter point of view, it was illegal." Harsh words indeed. Overall, however, the Iraqi debacle has produced a change in the public temperament of the United States. In the West, and even in the US, there is an ever-growing reaction against the invasion and military occupation of Iraq. There is a growing consensus that it was at best a serious miscalculation, at worst an utter fiasco. Annan has belatedly jumped onto this particular bandwagon. He also never made any excuses for the aggressive US policies, except towards the very end of his tenure. This apparent about face may have struck many as opportunistic. Think back to when he first dealt with the Iraqi dictator in 1998 and negotiated a deal on weapons inspections. Back then he told reporters, "I think I can do business with him." Annan waxed philosophical during his speech. "You cannot have a vision without a sense of history," he mused. On Iraq he stressed that: "We need to be as active on the political front as we are on the military front." By the political front, Annan presumably meant urging the various sectarian and political forces to conclude some kind of working relationship. This point was highlighted in the recently-released Baker-Hamilton report. The report admitted that, "violence is increasing in scope, complexity and lethality." And, more pertinently, the root of violence in Iraq was attributed to Washington. "Because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has both a national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy." The report plastered over many serious issues that would have put the Bush administration in an even more undignified spot. "There are multiple sources of violence in Iraq: the Sunni Arab insurgency, Al-Qaeda (and affiliated Jihadist groups), Shiite militias, death squads and organised criminality. Sectarian violence, particularly in and around Baghdad, has become the principal challenge to stability," the report noted. Annan, though, pandered to American sensibilities. "We need US leadership," he stressed. "We have lots of problems around the world and we require the natural leadership role the US played in the past and can play today. And so, to appeal for cooperation and leadership should never be seen as an attack." Annan pointed out that there are 90,000 UN peacekeeping troops deployed in 18 operations around the world, compared with just 25,000 at the start of his first term in 1997. The precise nature of the blue-helmeted peacekeepers' task is often questioned, but Annan expressed faith in his global police force. "More than ever today the world needs a functioning global system," he noted -- whatever that means. On that note, perhaps it is opportune to mention the scandal that embroiled Annan and members of his family. Annan's son, Kojo, and by implication Kofi Annan himself, was accused of utilising his political networks to profit from the sale of Iraqi oil as part of the dubious UN "Oil for Food Programme". In the eyes of many around the world, this was tantamount to perfidy. Between 1995 and 1997, Kojo Annan worked for the Swiss-based firm Contecna. Curiously Kojo was at a UN General Assembly meeting in September 1998 where he met several prominent world statesmen. By December 1998, Contecna won a $4.8 million oil-for-food contract. This lends a whole new meaning to the significance of the global village and globalisation. Still Annan appealed to his audience's better nature. "Now I want to pass on five lessons that I have learnt during 10 years as secretary-general: first, We are all responsible for each other's security. Second, we are responsible for each other's welfare. Third, both security and prosperity depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law. Fourth, governments must be accountable for their actions in the international as well as the domestic, arena." Last but not least, Annan emphasised the imperative role of multilateral institutions. He also stressed that developing countries around the world should have a stronger voice in international financial institutions. The UN's structure and finances are a mess. And, there is nothing Annan can do about it at this point in time. Perhaps, his successor might make a better job of Annan's tattered legacy.
