Annan seeks for UN second term<\/p>\n
By Arto Suryodipuro<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The word in the United Nations headquarters in
\nNew York for more than a year was that Kofi Annan would possibly
\nseek a second term as secretary-general.<\/p>\n
The rumors were laid to rest when, on March 22, Annan
\nannounced his intention to seek reelection, adding that "if
\nmember states decide to offer me a second term as secretary-
\ngeneral, I shall be deeply honored to accept (the offer)".<\/p>\n
The question of a second term for Annan involves the principle
\nof rotation, the almost established practice for each region of
\nthe world to hold the office for two terms (Annan and his
\npredecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who served one term,
\nrepresent Africa). In addition, Annan's performance since he
\nassumed the post should be evaluated on the basis of its merits.<\/p>\n
N membership is grouped into regions: Asia, Africa, Latin
\nAmerica and the Caribbean, Western Europe and others (including
\nAustralia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and recently
\nIsrael) and Eastern Europe.<\/p>\n
The main purpose of the rotation principle is to facilitate
\nelections, but it is also a means to help maintain the universal
\ncharacter of the United Nations by permitting each region to have
\nits turn in office.<\/p>\n
It is essential for any candidate to have, first and foremost,
\nthe support of his or her regional grouping. The African
\ncountries in the UN kicked off in mid-March the campaign for
\nAnnan's second term.<\/p>\n
The 53-member African grouping informed Annan that at a
\nspecial meeting, the group had decided "to strongly encourage you
\nto make a decision to seek another term, and should you so
\ndecide, to fully support your candidature".<\/p>\n
The first two secretaries-general of the UN were Europeans:
\nTrygve Lie of Norway (1946-1953) and Dag Hammarskjvld of Sweden
\n(1953-1961). They were followed by U Thant (Burma, 1961-1971),
\nKurt Waldheim (Austria, 1972-1981), Javier Pirez de Cuillar
\n(Peru, 1982-1991), Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt, 1992-1996) and
\nKofi Annan (Ghana, 1997-).<\/p>\n
Annan came to be secretary-general because of the American
\nveto of a second term for Boutros-Ghali over his policies in
\nSomalia and Bosnia (Boutros-Ghali, sadly, became the victim of
\nnegative campaigns during the American presidential election).<\/p>\n
The November 1996 election in the Security Council was
\npresided over by ambassador Nugroho Wisnumurti of Indonesia,
\nwhich was a nonpermanent member in 1995-1996.<\/p>\n
He produced the guidelines for selecting a candidate for
\nsecretary-general, known as the "Wisnumurti Guidelines".<\/p>\n
Many Asians believe Africa has had its two terms and it is now
\nAsia's turn. They correctly see Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Kofi
\nAnnan as both representing Africa. No region has had three terms
\nin a row. Kurt Waldheim almost got an unprecedented third term in
\n1981, but was vetoed by China.<\/p>\n
The election of the secretary-general is governed by the UN
\nCharter, which stipulates that "the Secretary-General shall be
\nappointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the
\nSecurity Council" (Article 97). This means that the selection and
\nelection processes are governed by precedence as much as by
\npolitics.<\/p>\n
It is widely held that Annan has the support of the West,
\nincluding three permanent members of the Security Council -- the
\nU.S., the United Kingdom and France.<\/p>\n
The former U.S. ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke, is
\nsaid to have called Annan "the best secretary-general in the
\nhistory of the UN".<\/p>\n
China's position is not quite clear yet, although President
\nJiang Zemin did tell Annan, during his visit to China in
\nFebruary, that "China is satisfied with the secretary-general's
\nwork", pledging his and the Chinese government's continued
\nsupport.<\/p>\n
Neither is it clear whether China would support an Asian
\ncandidate, should there be one.<\/p>\n
It would not be easy for Asia to come up with a candidate.
\nGeopolitical realities would probably eliminate many qualified
\nAsians, with rivalries in East Asia (China and Japan), South Asia
\n(India and Pakistan) and West Asia (the Persians and the Arabs,
\nand the Arabs and the Jews) leaving few choices.<\/p>\n
Southeast Asia, however, has a good chance of putting forward
\na candidate. In the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
\n(ASEAN) circle, the name of former Indonesian foreign minister
\nAli Alatas has, once again, resurfaced, together with Singapore's
\nenvoy to the UN, Kishore Mahbubani, Bangladesh's envoy to the UN,
\nAnwarul Karim Chowdury, and former Thai foreign minister Surin
\nPitsuwan, among others. But Asia has yet to come up with a
\nunified position.<\/p>\n
The UN secretary-general plays two roles, as mandated by the
\nUN Charter. In the first role, as stipulated in articles 97 and
\n98, the secretary-general is the chief administrative officer of
\nthe world body.<\/p>\n
He or she is to service the meetings of other principal UN
\norgans -- the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and
\nSocial Council and Trusteeship Council -- and other functions
\nentrusted to him by these organs.<\/p>\n
Annan has performed this role well. He began his career in the
\nUN system in 1962, beginning as an administrative officer and
\nbudget officer in Geneva. Thirty years later, Boutros Boutros-
\nGhali made him under-secretary-general for peacekeeping
\noperations, which came as a surprise to many since Annan was
\nconsidered within the UN as an economist and financial manager.<\/p>\n
No other secretary-general could have had a better
\nunderstanding of the inner workings of the UN than Annan.<\/p>\n
He is also one of the world's most seasoned diplomats. His
\nskills of persuasion are known to be a force in their own right.
\nIndeed, his managerial and diplomatic skills are among his strong
\npoints, compared to the more sensitive political and moral roles.<\/p>\n
The second role the secretary-general must play is stipulated
\nin Article 99, which states that "the Secretary-General may bring
\nto the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his
\nopinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and
\nsecurity". Thus he or she enjoys the privilege of a member state
\nin calling the attention of the Security Council.<\/p>\n
However, there are no longer clear limitations or criteria on
\nwhat constitutes a threat to international peace and security. In
\nfact, the Security Council over the last decade has consistently
\nwidened the meaning.<\/p>\n
Thus, while the crisis in East Timor in 1999 was deplorable,
\nit was by no means a "threat to international peace and
\nsecurity". Yet Annan and some influential members of the Council
\ndecided to call it that to justify intervention.<\/p>\n
Annan is a leading proponent of "humanitarian intervention" or
\n"humanitarian action". These concepts imply that the
\ninternational community has the right to intervene in the
\nsovereignty of countries that are experiencing gross and
\nsystematic violations of human rights.<\/p>\n
Annan admits that "if the commitment to humanitarian action is
\nto retain the support of the world's people, it must be -- and
\nmust be seen to be -- universal, irrespective of region or
\nnation". But it is next to impossible for intervention to be
\nuniversal, because only the strong intervene in the affairs of
\nthe weak, and not vice versa.<\/p>\n
Humanitarian action without universality and equality will not
\nand has not enjoyed the support of all people. This issue will
\ncontinue to be divisive.<\/p>\n
We should also ask whether this tendency to intervene has not
\ndiminished the ability of the UN (Secretariat) to be neutral and
\nimpartial. Annan has argued that impartiality "does not -- and
\nmust not -- mean neutrality in the face of evil. It means strict
\nand unbiased adherence to the principles of the charter --
\nnothing more, nothing less". It is difficult to disagree with
\nthis statement.<\/p>\n
But it is precisely the UN's perceived neutrality and
\nimpartiality that encourages conflicting parties to accept the
\nsecretary-general's offer to help in the search for a solution.
\nUnless the UN and its Secretariat maintain an equal distance from
\nconflicting parties, it will face the danger of ceasing to be
\npart of the solution.<\/p>\n
Annan's decision to pursue a second term is unprecedented in
\nthe sense that a regional group, in this case Africa, is seeking
\na third term.<\/p>\n
Many Asians may perceive it as elbowing them another five
\nyears away from their turn in the office, and it may have the
\nunintended consequence of weakening the universal character of
\nthe UN.<\/p>\n
Asians should come to a common position, and better sooner
\nthan later. Additionally, we may still admire Kofi Annan as a
\nman, an administrator and a diplomat.<\/p>\n
However, we should be wary that a second term for Annan may
\nfurther tilt the Secretariat in the direction of "intervention"
\nvis-a-vis "sovereignty".<\/p>\n
The writer was a member of the Indonesian delegation to the
\nUnited Nations from 1996 to 2000.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/annan-seeks-for-un-second-term-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}