Character Assassination of Kofi Annan by The Wall Street Journal by M.P. Prabhakaran

The Wall Street Journal’s contempt for the United Nations is well-known. But none had ever thought that that contempt would one day take the form of a character assassination campaign against Kofi Annan, its very affable Secretary General. “Colin in Kofiland,” the Journal’s lead editorial on October 13, 2003, is part of that campaign.

Kofi Annan is one of the two secretary generals that stand out, in the 58 years of the U.N.’s existence, for their efficiency, integrity and commitment to world peace. The other one was Dag Hammarskjold, who died in a plane crash on September 18, 1961, while on a peace mission to the Congo. Kofi Annan enjoys the confidence and respect of most members of the U.N. His leadership qualities have won him praise from almost all who have worked with him. The Nobel Peace Prize for 2001 recognized the stupendous contribution he and the U.N. have made to world peace. It’s a shame that some paleocon pen-pushers who produce editorials for The Wall Street Journal want to destroy his reputation. They call the U.N. “Kofiland.” If they coined the word Kofiland because it rhymes with Swaziland, they can rest assured that the message they are trying to convey has not been lost on the readers.

It is diabolical for the Journal to say that Kofi Annan is “now more interested in defeating President Bush than he ever was in toppling Saddam Hussein. Mr. Annan knows that Mr. Bush’s policy of anti-terror prevention [note to the editorial writer: anti-terror prevention means terror promotion] poses a serious challenge to what he claims is the ‘unique legitimacy’ of the collection of despots he leads – indeed, to the legitimacy of the unaccountable Secretary General himself.”

True, the U.N. has no legitimacy outside of what its members are willing to bestow on it. But it doesn’t cease to be legitimate simply because it refuses to put its imprimatur on the imperialist designs of one member state against another, even though that member state is the richest and the most powerful in the world. The anomaly of the composition of the Security Council notwithstanding, the U.N. is the only international organization we have today in which all nations – the strongest and the weakest, the richest and the poorest – enjoy equal status. Before condemning it as a “collection of despots,” the Journal should be doing some soul-searching.

Yes, the world still has despots some of whom are members of the U.N. But most of them would not have remained despotic this long but for the United States’ policy of condoning their despotism because of their usefulness in priming its pump. Even The Wall Street Journal may not be all that innocent in that respect. It may want to examine how much of the oil that keeps its engine running comes from those despots.

The issue that provoked the Journal’s latest tirade against Annan is the role he played during the discussion of the draft resolution the U.S. brought before the Security Council. As we all know, the purpose of the resolution was to seek support from other nations for the U.S. effort to rebuild Iraq. Annan’s role was limited to setting some guidelines for the discussion. To call it “open criticism” and “unprecedented” is to show ignorance of the functions of the Secretary General of the U.N. What is “open criticism” to the Journal is a much-appreciated help to most members of the Security Council.

The members had no problem supporting the essential features of the resolution. They knew that withholding support would be tantamount to showing indifference to the sufferings of Iraqis. But they were, at the same time, very keen that their support not be seen as a post-facto endorsement of a war which the U.S. fought in violation of international law and which they opposed for that reason. They also had another legitimate concern: many nations which otherwise wanted to help the Iraqis were reluctant to come forward because they had to channel their help through an occupying power. Those nations would happily come forward if they could deal directly with Iraqis or, until the Iraqis got organized, with the United Nations. That’s the only reason why Annan and some council members insisted on a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty from the occupying power to the people of Iraq. The U.S. balked at it and the deliberations on the resolution got prolonged. Annan gets ridiculed by the Journal for taking a principled position on Iraqi sovereignty. “Yes, that’s right,” says the October 13 editorial, “the man who was never eager to depose Saddam has now become a champion of Iraqi democracy.”

No right-minded person in the world, least of all Kofi Annan, was opposed to the idea of deposing Saddam. The problem Annan and others had was with the way Bush and his ilk went about doing it and the lie they fabricated to justify it. The quagmire the country finds itself in in Iraq today and the fact that it is more insecure now than before prove their point. Also, unlike many in the Bush administration, Annan never had any illusion of democratizing Iraq overnight. He knows full well that nowhere in the world has democracy been imposed from outside. Democratization of a society is a process that should evolve from within. Outside agencies can only help that process.

To the Journal’s great surprise (and disappointment?), the resolution was eventually passed. Thanks to the accommodative spirit shown by all, it was passed with the unanimous vote of all 15 members of the Security Council. The unanimity is also a tribute to the diplomatic skill of Secretary of State Colin Powell who, contrary to the Journal’s assessment of him, did make an “accurate assessment of others’ intentions.”

And how did the Journal react to it? Did it congratulate Powell and others for their remarkable achievement and apologize to Kofi Annan for the tirade it launched against him? No. Such gestures are made only by cultured people and institutions. Not by a paleolithic entity like The Wall Street Journal. It dismissed the resolution (Resolution 1511) as a “U.N. fig leaf that both Secretary of State Powell and the Bush Administration wanted for Iraq…” (See “The U.N. Fig Leaf,” editorial, October 17, 2003).

Doesn’t the Journal know that covering the shame with at least a fig leaf is better than leaving it bare for the whole world to laugh at?

You are right. Democracy cannot be imposed by force on any country. It has to evolve from within the soul of a nation.

George W. Bush is on his way out, come November 2004. If only he had bothered to read the Koran, he would have known that other cultures, lifestyles and systems of governance do exist in the world, along with his fiery evangelical Christian blustering.

Colin de Souza, Bangalore, India

November 27, 2003

Your very sharp, literate and insightful analysis is in the great tradition of public service journalism. Keep up the good work!

Terrific article. In a way it was poetic justice that the Bushies had to go back to the UN, hat in hand...and came away empty. Either they are really thick-skinned or their hubris blinds them.

The spin is getting to the point where I feel I am living in an alternate reality (separate from theirs).

Please keep up the good work.

Suresh Shottam, New York, New York, U.S.A.

October 28, 2003

…

Showing the True Face of the U.S.

Keep up the good work you are doing -- that of showing the world the true face of the United States. It's only through such efforts that the world understands who the real terrorist is. The British wanted to rule India only to take away its cotton to feed its textile mills and have a ready market for its products. History is being repeated. Only the players and products are different. Just like the British Empire was defeated by so-called backward Indians, the U.S. will shortly bite the dust. It's just a matter of time.

Deepan Bhatt, India

October 28, 2003

Back to Home Page►