Annan ... then what?

Editorial

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan will end his decade-long leadership of the international body this year. Many will say good riddance.

Under his guidance, the UN has failed on several fronts, not least of which was failing to prevent the growth of unilateralism, which is perhaps the most direct affront to the UN's raison d'être. More tangibly disastrous has been the UN's failure, under Annan, to effectively stanch a sickening tendency toward genocide in several world flashpoints. This cannot be pinned on one man, of course. The UN, created to a large extent as a testament to the Holocaust's lesson of "Never again," has proved tragically incapable of preventing genocide – in Srebrenica, in Rwanda and, as the world watches today, in Darfur. While this reflects on the UN itself and its leadership, the real culprit is the failure of member-states to authorize the means and directions necessary to take proper actions, such as the duty to protect.

Still, Annan deserves condemnation for things he himself could have prevented and for things he himself has said and done. Aside from criticism (though no criminal sanctions) relating to his son's involvement in the oil-for-food scandal, Annan has brought the UN into a degree of disrepute unseen under previous secretaries-general.

Annan has participated in some dubious UN-sponsored events, including one at which he was a panellist sitting astride a map of "Palestine" in which Israel was nonexistent. He has joined with some of the world's most despicable terrorists and dictators in celebrating the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. In July, when Israeli forces accidentally killed four UN peacekeepers, Annan, in the absence of any facts, reason or common sense, accused Israel of deliberately targeting UN personnel. In one of his last acts in office, on Sunday, Annan moved to create a "register of damage" through which Palestinians impacted by Israel's security barrier could claim damages against Israel. This is in keeping with a long history of holding Israel alone responsible for everything negative in the Middle East.

Put mildly, Annan has not been a friend to Israel - but that is not the role of a secretary-general. The role of a secretary-general should, however, be governed by an adherence to fairness, balance and ethical behavior, and there is little evidence that history will view Annan's tenure as having carried out this diplomatic imperative. As the head of an organization whose General Assembly is effectively controlled by a mob predisposed to despise Israel, Annan was forced into a difficult position.

Will his successor be any better? Ban Ki Moon, who has risen through the bureaucracy of South Korea's foreign affairs department to serve as foreign minister, will succeed Annan on Jan. 1.

Ban has said UN reform will be a top priority and, while this may be music to the ears of many Israelis, Jews and Zionists, the reality of the UN is unlikely to diverge enormously from the historical tyranny of the anti-Zionist majority. A precedent, set by Annan, exists in the form of effort to repair the UN's Human Rights Commission, which was poisoned by anti-Zionist fanatics, with a Human Rights Council that adopted essentially the same tone. The chances of progress on this front are limited.

Even so, Ban has been reaching out to Jewish organizations that have been discouraged by the last few years of obsessive anti-Israel activity at the UN.

Given the static nature and entrenched caucus system of the UN, change will not be easy. Besides, the UN represents the reality of global democracy, such as it is, meaning that the majority of countries whose own domestic commitment to democracy is nonexistent or sadly lacking nonetheless have an equal vote in the General Assembly. Given that most countries in the world subscribe to variations on an unbalanced, pro-Palestinian narrative, the UN is unlikely to alter its position. The underlying problem, obviously, is the world's predisposition against Israel. Until this changes, it's hard to see the UN changing.

^TOP