Annan super star

"Saint-like" for some, a villain for others, this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate Kofi Annan remains a highly controversial figure, writes Faiza Rady
Since 11 September United Nations Secretary- General Kofi Annan has been blessed with the aura of super-stardom. The gods and the powers-that-be have smiled down on him, first with a massive cash- injection for the UN and then with arguably the world's highest diplomatic honour.
The good karma began with an unexpected bonus of $582 million from US President George W Bush. Although not a bonus in the strict sense of the term -- Bush was merely paying a fraction of long-overdue US arrears dating back to 1992 -- the impeccable timing of the settlement released formidable dormant energies at the UN. If money cannot buy happiness, it can at least get the ball rolling.
Having pocketed the US cash, the UN promptly jumped on the bandwagon of the US-led crusade against terrorism. Closely trailing the US president's war cries and often echoing Bush's rhetoric, Annan quickly rallied support for a worldwide coalition in the struggle pitting the good against the bad and the ugly. "There are common enemies," wrote Annan in a New York Times op-ed article. "To defeat them, all nations must join forces in an effort encompassing every aspect of the open, free global system."
While passionately beating the anti-terrorist drum and singing hymns to the capitalist market, the secretary-general treaded softly around the vexing issue of warfare. A consummate diplomat, Annan omitted any expression of even slight opposition to the US bombing of Afghanistan.
Last week, Annan's diplomatic efforts were rewarded with the Nobel prize for peace, which he shared with the UN organisation as a whole. In an eloquent appraisal of the secretary-general's tenure, the Nobel Committee specifically referred to Annan's relentless and unqualified support of the crusade against terrorism. They further lauded Annan's commitment to the UN's "traditional responsibility for peace and security" and his work on human rights. The newly- anointed Nobel laureate was instantly catapulted into stardom, doted with the unique aura of celebrity. "There's a saint-like sense about him," commented former US Senator Timothy Wirth.
While Annan and the UN were basking in the limelight, however, all was not quite for the best in this best of all possible worlds. While world leaders unanimously hailed the Nobel peace laureates with praise heaped sky-high, a few dissenting voices rose above the chorus.
In Bosnia, survivors of the 1995 massacre of up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serbs in the UN-controlled "safe area" of Srebrenica said they were "appalled" by the Nobel award. At the time of the massacre, Annan was head of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPO) responsible for civilian security. "The United Nations and Kofi Annan are winners of the Nobel prize for genocide against the Bosniaks [Muslims] of the Drina valley and the whole of Bosnia," the Mothers of Srebrenica and Drina Valley association of survivors said in a statement.
Other voices damning the UN and its secretary- general came from Annan's native Africa. "He has a heavy responsibility in the Rwandan genocide," said Antoine Mugesera, a representative of Rwandan genocide survivors. "It is a pity, it is unfortunate. He should not have been awarded that Nobel Prize."
Mugesera's condemnation of the UN and Annan's role prior to and during the Rwandan genocide echo the findings of the International Panel of Eminent Personalities (IPEP), a high-profile team commissioned by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to investigate the massacre of 800,000 Rwandans in 1994. The IPEP report unequivocally holds the international community -- as embodied in the UN -- responsible for allowing the genocide to happen.
"There can be not an iota of doubt that the international community knew the following: that something terrible was under way in Rwanda, that serious plans were afoot for even more appalling deeds, that these went far beyond routine thuggery, and that the world nevertheless stood by and did nothing," the report states, concluding after a two-year investigation that the genocide could easily have been averted.
The report singles out France, Belgium, the OAU and the Catholic and Anglican church hierarchies, but more specifically, the US and the UN -- its Secretariat and Department of Peacekeeping Operations -- for having failed the Rwandan people. Prior to and throughout the genocide, the US adamantly used their veto in the Security Council to stonewall any calls to intervene and halt the daily massacre of tens of thousands of Rwandans. Following the debacle of US and UN forces in Somalia, the Clinton administration was unwilling to participate in the decision to commit UN soldiers to yet another impoverished and obscure African nation.
Consequently, the US stubbornly refused to define the wholesale slaughter of Rwandans as genocide, labelling it instead as "ethnic conflict" and "civil war" -- in the face of all evidence. "No amount of evidence ever changed the American position," says the report. Rwanda had no strategic value, hence Rwandan lives were deemed expendable.
Meanwhile the DPO, headed by Kofi Annan, faithfully followed the US lead by denying UNAMIR -- the UN Assistance Mission to Rwanda -- permission to expand their mandate from "peace-keeping" to "peace enforcement." Annan's catastrophic decision to deny UNAMIR peace enforcement capabilities effectively signed the death warrant for hundreds of thousands of Rwandans. Downgraded to the status of an officially "neutral" observer force, the impotent peace-keepers were only authorised to use force for self-protection. Thus the UN gave the Hutu powers a free hand, reinforcing a long-standing culture of impunity. "The fundamental capacity problems of UNAMIR led to the terrible situation of a UN peace- keeping force almost paralysed in the face of some of the worst brutality humankind has seen in this century," the IPEP report observed.
In the aftermath of the genocide and following the inevitable outpour of global public outrage, the US and other concerned countries like Belgium and France -- along with the UN world body -- pleaded ignorance of the facts. On a visit to the Rwandan capital Kigali in his capacity as UN secretary-general, a contrite Kofi Annan apologised to the Rwandan people for his failure to stop the genocide and -- like everybody else -- lamely claimed lack of insight.
In his address to the Rwandan parliament, Annan rose to the occasion -- performing with the eloquence and pathos of a consummate stage player. "All of us who cared about Rwanda ... fervently wish that we could have prevented the genocide. Looking back now we see the signs which then were not recognised," Annan was quoted as saying. While the sincerity of Annan's performance may have appeared flawless to the uninitiated, Rwandan officials were outraged. They entertained no doubts concerning Annan's access to any and all available "signs" throughout his tenure as chief of peace- keeping operations.
Despite Annan's ill-fated role during the Rwandan genocide and the Srebrenica massacre, the question of his personal responsibility does remain somewhat ambiguous. A high-level UNAMIR officer, testifying as a key witness for the IPEP investigation, believes that pointing the finger at the UN and its civil servants smacks of scapegoating. Real decision-making, he says, happens elsewhere. Beyond the Secretariat, the secretary-general and even the Security Council, a small number of world powers impose their policies from behind closed doors. "There is a meeting of like-minded powers, who do decide before anything gets to the Security Council. And they had decided at the very outset of the mission that Rwanda was unimportant," explained the UNAMIR witness.
Recommend this page
Related stories:
Ignoble Nobel? 18 - 24 October 2001
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor