Annan seeks for UN second term

By Arto Suryodipuro

JAKARTA (JP): The word in the United Nations headquarters in New York for more than a year was that Kofi Annan would possibly seek a second term as secretary-general.

The rumors were laid to rest when, on March 22, Annan announced his intention to seek reelection, adding that "if member states decide to offer me a second term as secretary- general, I shall be deeply honored to accept (the offer)".

The question of a second term for Annan involves the principle of rotation, the almost established practice for each region of the world to hold the office for two terms (Annan and his predecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who served one term, represent Africa). In addition, Annan's performance since he assumed the post should be evaluated on the basis of its merits.

N membership is grouped into regions: Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Western Europe and others (including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and recently Israel) and Eastern Europe.

The main purpose of the rotation principle is to facilitate elections, but it is also a means to help maintain the universal character of the United Nations by permitting each region to have its turn in office.

It is essential for any candidate to have, first and foremost, the support of his or her regional grouping. The African countries in the UN kicked off in mid-March the campaign for Annan's second term.

The 53-member African grouping informed Annan that at a special meeting, the group had decided "to strongly encourage you to make a decision to seek another term, and should you so decide, to fully support your candidature".

The first two secretaries-general of the UN were Europeans: Trygve Lie of Norway (1946-1953) and Dag Hammarskjvld of Sweden (1953-1961). They were followed by U Thant (Burma, 1961-1971), Kurt Waldheim (Austria, 1972-1981), Javier Pirez de Cuillar (Peru, 1982-1991), Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt, 1992-1996) and Kofi Annan (Ghana, 1997-).

Annan came to be secretary-general because of the American veto of a second term for Boutros-Ghali over his policies in Somalia and Bosnia (Boutros-Ghali, sadly, became the victim of negative campaigns during the American presidential election).

The November 1996 election in the Security Council was presided over by ambassador Nugroho Wisnumurti of Indonesia, which was a nonpermanent member in 1995-1996.

He produced the guidelines for selecting a candidate for secretary-general, known as the "Wisnumurti Guidelines".

Many Asians believe Africa has had its two terms and it is now Asia's turn. They correctly see Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan as both representing Africa. No region has had three terms in a row. Kurt Waldheim almost got an unprecedented third term in 1981, but was vetoed by China.

The election of the secretary-general is governed by the UN Charter, which stipulates that "the Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council" (Article 97). This means that the selection and election processes are governed by precedence as much as by politics.

It is widely held that Annan has the support of the West, including three permanent members of the Security Council -- the U.S., the United Kingdom and France.

The former U.S. ambassador to the UN, Richard Holbrooke, is said to have called Annan "the best secretary-general in the history of the UN".

China's position is not quite clear yet, although President Jiang Zemin did tell Annan, during his visit to China in February, that "China is satisfied with the secretary-general's work", pledging his and the Chinese government's continued support.

Neither is it clear whether China would support an Asian candidate, should there be one.

It would not be easy for Asia to come up with a candidate. Geopolitical realities would probably eliminate many qualified Asians, with rivalries in East Asia (China and Japan), South Asia (India and Pakistan) and West Asia (the Persians and the Arabs, and the Arabs and the Jews) leaving few choices.

Southeast Asia, however, has a good chance of putting forward a candidate. In the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) circle, the name of former Indonesian foreign minister Ali Alatas has, once again, resurfaced, together with Singapore's envoy to the UN, Kishore Mahbubani, Bangladesh's envoy to the UN, Anwarul Karim Chowdury, and former Thai foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan, among others. But Asia has yet to come up with a unified position.

The UN secretary-general plays two roles, as mandated by the UN Charter. In the first role, as stipulated in articles 97 and 98, the secretary-general is the chief administrative officer of the world body.

He or she is to service the meetings of other principal UN organs -- the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council and Trusteeship Council -- and other functions entrusted to him by these organs.

Annan has performed this role well. He began his career in the UN system in 1962, beginning as an administrative officer and budget officer in Geneva. Thirty years later, Boutros Boutros- Ghali made him under-secretary-general for peacekeeping operations, which came as a surprise to many since Annan was considered within the UN as an economist and financial manager.

No other secretary-general could have had a better understanding of the inner workings of the UN than Annan.

He is also one of the world's most seasoned diplomats. His skills of persuasion are known to be a force in their own right. Indeed, his managerial and diplomatic skills are among his strong points, compared to the more sensitive political and moral roles.

The second role the secretary-general must play is stipulated in Article 99, which states that "the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security". Thus he or she enjoys the privilege of a member state in calling the attention of the Security Council.

However, there are no longer clear limitations or criteria on what constitutes a threat to international peace and security. In fact, the Security Council over the last decade has consistently widened the meaning.

Thus, while the crisis in East Timor in 1999 was deplorable, it was by no means a "threat to international peace and security". Yet Annan and some influential members of the Council decided to call it that to justify intervention.

Annan is a leading proponent of "humanitarian intervention" or "humanitarian action". These concepts imply that the international community has the right to intervene in the sovereignty of countries that are experiencing gross and systematic violations of human rights.

Annan admits that "if the commitment to humanitarian action is to retain the support of the world's people, it must be -- and must be seen to be -- universal, irrespective of region or nation". But it is next to impossible for intervention to be universal, because only the strong intervene in the affairs of the weak, and not vice versa.

Humanitarian action without universality and equality will not and has not enjoyed the support of all people. This issue will continue to be divisive.

We should also ask whether this tendency to intervene has not diminished the ability of the UN (Secretariat) to be neutral and impartial. Annan has argued that impartiality "does not -- and must not -- mean neutrality in the face of evil. It means strict and unbiased adherence to the principles of the charter -- nothing more, nothing less". It is difficult to disagree with this statement.

But it is precisely the UN's perceived neutrality and impartiality that encourages conflicting parties to accept the secretary-general's offer to help in the search for a solution. Unless the UN and its Secretariat maintain an equal distance from conflicting parties, it will face the danger of ceasing to be part of the solution.

Annan's decision to pursue a second term is unprecedented in the sense that a regional group, in this case Africa, is seeking a third term.

Many Asians may perceive it as elbowing them another five years away from their turn in the office, and it may have the unintended consequence of weakening the universal character of the UN.

Asians should come to a common position, and better sooner than later. Additionally, we may still admire Kofi Annan as a man, an administrator and a diplomat.

However, we should be wary that a second term for Annan may further tilt the Secretariat in the direction of "intervention" vis-a-vis "sovereignty".

The writer was a member of the Indonesian delegation to the United Nations from 1996 to 2000.