As IF Times

link Kofi Annan’s Legacy Threatened by Syria’s Violence – NYTimes.com.

I’m sure most people in the world didn’t even know that Kofi Annan had a legacy to preserve.  They may vaguely recognize the name as the figurehead secretary general of the U.N. for a number of years.  The article quotes colleagues in describing his main attributes, “…an engaging personality, ability to convey empathy and a forceful advocate of basic human rights…”  In addition, supporters say,

“…He’s a very experienced diplomat and he’s very good at getting on with people,” Mr. Mortimer said in a telephone interview. “He’s somebody who’s difficult to have a row with. He actually had a paperweight on his desk with the slogan: ‘Diplomacy is the art of letting the other guy have it your way… ”

There’s nothing in the promo that says anything about success.  The characteristics used to describe Mr. Annan can as easily be attributed to Mr. Rogers, my 4th grade teacher Miss Klassen or the gal at the Burger King down the street.  I don’t know who is responsible for embellishing the legacy of Mr. Annan, but any pretensions that he has one at all, much less one to be proud of, is pure revisionist fantasy.  A very quick look at the website, www.warsintheworld.com will show that currently, there are dozens if not multiple dozens of armed conflicts with their attendant human rights transgressions going on in the world right now.  (It’s amusing enough that someone keeps track of this stuff).  The record of the U.N.’s success at enforcing human rights worldwide is dubious at best.

So, which part of Annan’s legacy is in danger?   Sure he’s had an improbable climb to his exalted position, from humble beginnings as a tour guide to defender of human rights for the world.   I guess he was the right guy for the job.  We’ll agree that when trying to intervene during armed conflicts, we do need a calming voice to exhort ‘both sides to show restraint’, even when the conflict is laughingly lopsided.  Such is presently the case in Syria now when government forces are cavalierly executing and torturing their own citizens.  The victims have to show some restraint from bleeding and dying  if the conflict can be resolved peacefully.   Or in the case of many African tribal wars, where victims have to be more considerate by not having limbs chopped off.

No rational person can blame Annan,  or the U.N. for that matter,  for their inability to stop wars.  Warfare at some level is part of the human condition from the first time someone figured out how to swing a stick.   But let’s not pretend that Annan, like his successor Ban Ki Moon are anything but bureaucrats who are installed for political reasons to convey some sense of moral authority to the U.N.  They may not actually do anything, but at least they express moral outrage.  Sort of like Gary Bettman.  People such as Annan, Ban Ki Moon  and most all bureaucrats are fortunate that the pay regime at the U.N. is based on effort and not on real results as in most legitimate organizations.  If it was based on results, he’d have been better off in the tour guide business.

link BBC News – Profile: Ban Ki-moon.

This all sounds warm and fuzzy, but what is it exactly that the head of the U.N. does?  Not to just to pick on Mr. Ban, but let’s include  the professional tsk tskers before him, Kofi Annan, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, etc. etc., all the way back to  U Thant.  Viewed outside of the circle of the political jet set, what accomplishments do these people actually achieve?  More importantly, how do they get appointed to these cushy jobs? 

We would have to assume that the number one priority of this person and in fact the  founding reason for the U.N.’s existence lies with the standard answer given by beauty contestants for decades; that is world peace.  By this measure, the results are spotty and certainly debatable.  Founded in 1945 after World War 2, the U.N. was ostensibly set up to prevent the outbreak of another world scale military conflict through diplomatic means.  On the surface, this kind of worked, but perhaps only because after World War 2, the only nation that wasn’t obliterated was the United States.  In fact, through the rebuilding process of its wartime enemies Germany and Japan, the Americans helped move the world into a period of 60 years of general prosperity accompanied by a somewhat  uneven peace.  Conflicts such as the Vietnam War, the Korean War, Kosovo etc., were arguably policing conflicts rather than world scale hostilities.  It was the U.N. that helped with the creation of Israel in 1948, ironically, the source of much of world conflict today. 

It’s certainly debatable whether or not the U.N. has had any real efficacy if not for their main asset of American financing, resources and of course military arsenal.  Paradoxically, the U.S. is consistently at odds with the rest of the members of the U.N. on many world issues.  Given a chance, all and sundry banana republic nations condemn the U.S. for one thing or another.   Just as the Democrats in the U.S. like to pin all that ails the nation on George Bush, so does the rest of the world assign blame to the Americans for all of the world’s woes.   This, despite the collection of shady and comic book caricatures of tin pot dictators that populate the U.N.’s committees.   Most recently, Mohmar Khadaffi, he of bombing his own people fame, was the Chair of the U.N.’s human rights council and in fact created the eponymous Khadaffi prize for excellence in that field.   You can’t make that one up.

So, getting back to Mr. Ban. What unique qualifications does this guy have that he is unopposed and unanimously acclaimed for another term in office?  If you read the article, he is exalted for his efforts on Global Warming during his first term.   Hmm.  So world peace is not among his accomplishments, but ‘awareness’ of global warming is.  Call me cynical, but I suspect there’s more money in the global warming racket than there is in quelling dictators.  If only he didn’t have to share a stage with that media hog Al Gore.

In addition, it’s not as if he even has to learn anything new for his job.  It’s likely that there exists a manual of epithets and catchphrases that he can choose from in which to create rousing speeches, all applicable to any circumstance:

“We must act now to avert an imminent crisis”

“Time is running out to avert a humanitarian crisis”

“The world must come together to avert this crisis”

“The world cannot stand idly by while this crisis unfolds”

Crisis of course is the key word, without which there would be no implied urgency.   On the other hand, saving the world is a tough job.  Hope he’s up to it.