Annan does not deserve it!

By Tajudeen ABOUT 10 days ago, a BBC World Knowledge producer rang me asking if I could participate in a documentary about the UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. In the pre-interview, she also wanted to know if I could shed light on Mr Annan’s early life in Ghana. I informed her that I could share my personal views for whatever it was worth; but that I did not know anything about his past although I promised to check with Ghanaian friends who might be able to help her. He is one of the most recognisable faces in the world but most people including Ghanaians seem to know little or nothing abut him. Finally the search led to the veteran Ghanaian writer and journalist, Cameron Duodu. I have not seen the programme; so I cannot know whether Duodu was able to shed more light on this global man who seem not to have any history outside of the UN. Out of curiosity I asked the producer why she was making the programme. Then she let it slip that the UN secretary-general was likely to be awarded this year’s Nobel prize for peace. Quite honestly, I thought the BBC woman was on one of those journalistic goose chases of ‘just-in-case’, looking for instant footage to get one up their rivals. I could not think of any reason why the UN secretary-general or the UN at these very dangerous times could be considered for such an award. “For what?” I kept asking her. To which she answered: “You tell me.” Even now that it true, I still do not know why. The past few years have not be good ones for the UN as the organisation that the whole world is supposed to depend on for global peace and security. It has stood by watching events as they happen merely providing vacuous statements and appeals that often fell on deaf ears and blind eyes as different powerful nations and even the not so powerful, unilaterally define their security concerns and go about sorting out their problems. Where is the UN in the Congo? Where is it in Sierra-Leone today? Where was it in Liberia? Where was it in Bosnia? But more astounding for an organisation formed to the cries of ‘never again’ after the genocide against Jews in Europe was its shameful and scandalous abandonment of the people of Rwanda in the face of genocide, almost 50 years to its founding. It is on Rwanda that both the failure of the UN institution and the personal responsibility of the UN secretary-general combine to make the award most distasteful. He was responsible for peace keeping and the responsible officer who did not act, when he should have, on the infamous fax from the UN’s own commander in Rwanda at the time. Yes, he has made personal efforts to atone for his and the UN’s ignoble role. He even took the courageous step of conducting a critical UN investigation into its role in Rwanda. Should they be rewarded for that? Did the UN act differently in Sebrenica? Where is the UN on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that is as old as the UN itself? More contemporarily, where is the UN in the current global war against terrorism? Over 2,000 tonnes of bombs have been rained on huts, caves, UN warehouses, hospitals, Red Cross warehouses and civilian settlements in Afghanistan: where is the UN? Is it leading the peace effort or merely a cheer leader? A British minister Clare Short, someone who is normally a lone voice of good conscience in the British government, a recent unfortunate (but very accurate) choice of words said after the military action the country will “elegantly” be handed over to the UN. That is indeed the role of the UN today: to provide elegant make-overs to countries and peoples after the big powers have had their field day. It cannot even decide the make over time. The plight of Iraqis comes readily to mind. Inaction over genocide never harmed the rise and rise of the UN secretary-general. Therefore it could not be doing any damage to the organisation that he leads. The Peace Prize is a reward for keeping quiet, looking the other side or providing legitimacy for the USA and her allies to do as they please. The criticism of the UN is not because such an organisation is not needed in the world, but because it is not living up to the lofty ideas that inspired its formation. There are individual agencies of the UN like the UNICEF, the Human Rights Commission, the UNDP and others that are making greatly valued contribution to global co-operation and advancement which should be honoured as some have been in the past. However, to give it to the UN as a whole, on recent history and performance now, is at best an insensitive gesture or plain propaganda for an organisation (without fundamental reform) that may be passing its sell-by date. Is the world so poorly supplied with genuine peace workers that the Nobel Committee in its 100th year has to turn to the UN? A quick check on their websites revealed that that infamous cold warrior now the subject of litigation for war crimes in a number of countries, Dr Henry Kissinger, got the award too in 1973 to be shared with the North Vietnamese, Le Duc Tho, who declined the prize. I guess the UN and its secretary-general cannot have such qualms because this is a “price” and not a prize. Tajudeen28@hotmail.com