UNITED NATIONS: When UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan recently faulted a lop-sided US resolution for failing to assure self-rule for Iraqis, he was accused of threatening a regime change in the White House.

The politically conservative Wall Street Journal said Annan’s open criticism of the proposal was “unprecedented for a UN leader”. Said the Journal editorial, “that he’s now more interested in defeating (US) President George Bush than he ever was in toppling (Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein”.

The charge was way off the mark. At a time when many a willing servant of the US is dismissing the United Nations, Annan has been trying to assert himself and protect the credibility of the much-maligned organisation.

On Thursday, he announced the withdrawal of international staff from Baghdad, over US objections, fearing for their safety. In his opening address to the 191-member General Assembly in September, Annan strongly denounced the concept of the pre- emptive military strike — taking a dig at the US, which invaded Iraq in March without UN authorisation.

At a summit meeting on terrorism, also in September, Annan condemned state terrorism, this time taking a shot at Israel, a political sacred cow in the US administration.

Still, Annan’s new-found assertiveness has drawn mixed reviews from US academics, long-time UN watchers and representatives of non- governmental organisations (NGOs).

“It is too late for Kofi Annan to try to rescue the sinking reputation of his leadership, or lack thereof, of the international organisation,” Professor As’ad Abukhalil of California State University told IPS. “Maybe the UN bombings in Baghdad were a wake-up call for Annan, who had been long asleep at the wheel. But it is a belated wake-up, and this person who was brought in by the US, will be kept by the US because he proved his usefulness.”

Former UN Assistant Secretary-General Hans Von Sponeck, who headed the oil-for-food programme in Iraq, was more charitable: “The US government does not want to understand that its hegemonial policies and its unilateral actions are endangering the future of the organisation Secretary-General Annan is heading. He has no choice but to remind the US that this is neither acceptable to the international community nor to himself.”

Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, believes Annan is deeply committed to the UN as an institution. “So, the credibility of the world body is of great importance to him.”

“He recognises the geo-political reality of a unipolar world, where challenging US prerogatives too directly could end up harming not just his career but the institution as a whole,” Zunes added in an interview.

“It has always been a delicate balancing act, and his eloquent use of “UN speak”, has been one way of trying to find that middle ground,” Zunes said.

At the same time, Annan realises that allowing the Bush administration to get away with too much would damage UN credibility in much of the rest of the world, he added.

As UN Secretary-General, Annan might be one of the few people with a high enough profile and international reputation to potentially make a difference. “Besides, most secretaries-general don’t serve more than two terms, anyway,” he added.

Annan, a native of Ghana and the first UN secretary- general from Africa, completes his second five-year term in December 2006.

Jeff Laurenti, a long-time UN expert and member of the board of directors of the UN Association of USA, told IPS that Annan alone has the international and American credibility to be able to represent the UN cause in the face of controversy coming out of Washington.

“He was explicitly critical of pre-emptive strikes. But he was careful not to criticise any particular government. (Yet) nobody could fail to see he was talking about the conservative ideologues in Washington,” Laurenti said.

“It is his conviction — and that of many others in the world — that the whole question of regulation of the use of force is the cornerstone of the UN charter and the collective security system. And if you take that out, the whole structure comes crumbling down.

“So, he felt compelled to dramatise it and make this issue the sole theme of his address to the General Assembly, which indicates the gravity of the situation.”

Laurenti also pointed out that humanitarian intervention was Annan’s theme in his 1991 General Assembly speech following the Kosovo war: “ultimately it is people, not states that matter”, he said at the time.

“Just as he took on the governments of developing countries in that debate, so Annan has taken on the American nationalist conservative critics this year. In a sense, there is a symmetry,” Laurenti added.

But Joan Russow of the Canada-based Global Compliance Research Project saw no redeeming feature in Annan’s General Assembly statement.

“Regardless of Kofi Annan’s remarks about pre-emptive- preventive attacks, the Security Council under his guidance has essentially condoned what should not be condoned: pre-emptive attacks; violation of the (UN) charter and the rule of international law; invaders setting up a hand-picked provisional government in Iraq; and invaders avoiding their responsibilities under UN Geneva Conventions,” she said.

“After Bush declared that the war in Iraq was over, Annan called upon nations to support the reconstruction of and humanitarian support for Iraq, conveying that there were no irreversible consequences of war; and consequently rele-

gated the UN to the role of not ‘preventer’ but a perpetuator of the cycle of error,” she added.——Dawn/InterPress News Service.