UN leadership

Kofi Annan's election as United Nations Secretary-General may have ended the quest for new UN leadership, but it marks a new beginning that is no less challenging for the world body. The leadership controversy -- sparked by the United States' refusal to let outgoing secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali serve a second term, in spite of international support -- has shifted attention away from some of the world's more pressing problems. Now that the leadership row has been settled to everyone's satisfaction, the UN can get back to business.

This is not to say that UN leadership is unimportant, or that it is less important than the tasks at hand. It is important, and Boutros-Ghali proved that he had the vision as well as the diplomatic and administrative skills to take the UN through a particularly difficult five years.

There were power shifts in the world and in the UN following the end of the Cold War, from which the United States emerged as the world's single superpower. Attempts were made at peace in the Middle East and civil wars erupted in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia and Rwanda. Boutros-Ghali initiated badly needed reforms in the United Nations, whose financial problems have been exacerbated by Washington's refusal to pay arrears of $1.3 billion.

Boutros-Ghali's chief fault was that he fell out of favor with the Americans, or at least their leaders. In an institution that has 30 percent of its bill picked up by the United States, the Americans obviously feel they have a little more say. In this era of corporate-style management, the UN must be run, to some extent, according to the demands of its shareholders.

The world probably could not have chosen a better successor than Annan, who takes his place on Jan. 1, 1997. As a career UN officer, Annan knows the ins and outs of the UN operation. His current position as undersecretary-general for peacekeeping operations bodes well for what is expected to remain the UN's primary task -- maintaining world peace.

As an official from Ghana, he is expected to be sensitive to the problems and needs of developing countries in general, and the problems of African countries in particular. Africa is home to some of the world's poorest and most troubled countries and deserves special attention.

Given his immense experience at the UN, there is no need to question his diplomatic and administrative skills. Annan's job has been made easier by the fact that much of the groundwork has been laid by Boutros-Ghali. And his job will be to continue with some of his predecessor's unfinished tasks. In the case of UN reform, an area in which Boutros-Ghali was accused by Americans of being slow, Annan could quicken the pace. The vision was set by Boutros-Ghali, but Annan has the support of the United States.

A UN chief must always be subservient to the group's members. But he must retain some independence, at least from serving the interests of a member country or a group of countries. Now that the 185 members of the General Assembly have elected Annan, every one, without exception, should support him in his efforts to tackle the priorities. For Washington, this means paying up some of its huge debt.

The lesson of Boutros-Ghali is that a leader is only as effective as those being led allow him to be. If Annan is to succeed in addressing the problems facing our globe, then we should all give him the chance to do so.