How did Kofi Annan spend 10 years running the UN and not notice it was an ineffective talking shop?When precisely did Kofi Annan catch on that the the UN Security Council is a dysfunctional and ineffective body that specializes in big pronouncements accompanied by little action?
The former United Nations
Secretary General announced he’s abandoning his effort to find a workable solution to the crisis in Syria, because the Security Council was wasting its time on “finger pointing and name calling”.
While Syrians are being killed by the thousands, and refugee camps are swelling with families fleeing the fighting, the members of the Security Council are busy squabbling.
At an impromptu press conference, Annan said he accepted the role when it seemed the international community led by the U.N. Security Council could help end the violence, enforce a cease-fire and bring about a political transition.The former secretary general professed to be disappointed by the situation
But the former U.N. secretary-general told reporters he cannot go on when the 15-nation council provides no backing for his role, particularly because of the standoff between its five veto-wielding members: Russia and China on one side, the United States, Britain and France on the other.
… “When the Syrian people desperately need action, there continues to be finger pointing and name calling in the Security Council,” Annan told reporters in Geneva. “It is impossible for me or anyone to compel the Syrian government and also the opposition to take the steps to bring about the political process.”
“I did not receive all the support that the cause deserved,” he said. Disunity in the Security Council had “fundamentally changed the circumstances for the effective exercise of my role.” Syria can still be saved, he claimed, “if the international community can show the courage and leadership necessary to compromise on their partial interests for the sake of the Syrian people – for the men, women and children who have already suffered far too much.”
The only shock in these statements is that Mr. Annan could have served ten years as the top official at the UN without noticing that it was largely a talking shop that habitually goes AWOL when it’s most needed. He was director of UN peacekeeping operations when the Rwanda genocide took place, perhaps UN peacekeeping’s lowest moment among many. He was secretary general when the UN notably failed to take effective action against Iraq’s flouting of the oil-for-food program or the slaughter of innocents in Darfur. He was on hand for the complete failure of the UN to deter Russia from brutalizing Chechnya.
Didn’t he notice?
Mr Annan agreed in February to serve as a special envoy for the UN and the Arab League in trying to stem the bloodshed in Syria, which has only grown progressively worse. It has been evident for some time that President Bashar Assad is willing to murder as many Syrians as necessary to hold onto power, and that a peaceful solution to the civil war was a pipe dream.
Nonetheless, Mr. Annan produced a plan calling for an end to the fighting, access for aid agencies, freedom for press coverage of the conflict and a Syrian-led political process to end hostilities. Neither side paid the slightest attention, and fighting has continue to escalate into an all-out war in which Assad has taken to strafing and bombing his own cities in an effort to dislodge rebel forces. Russia, which has an important naval base in Syria, and China, which always opposes efforts to stop internal strife, have blocked every effort to bring effective international effort to bear. As they generally do.
All of it has been predictable, because that’s the way it usually works at the UN.
How is it that Kofi Annan didn’t notice until now?