Interview with Professor Marcello Kohen, specialist for international law and the United Nations system, professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies (IUHEI), Geneva.
by Dr. Jérôme Koechlin, member of the «Fondation pour Genève» Council
What is your assessment of the two mandates and 10 years spent by Kofi Annan as Secretary General of the United Nations?
It is always difficult to make an assessment since on one hand the international situation is made up of crises and challenges, and on the other hand the UN Secretary General’s power is limited. We can, however, take a view as regards his own position, of what he could and could not have done; from this perspective there are positive and less positive points. To Kofi Annan’s credit – and it often tends to be forgotten – he was successful in setting up highly efficient controls for arms of mass destruction in Iraq, before President Bush started his war and occupied the country under the pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed such weapons. Yet the UN initiative was exactly what prevented Iraq from producing those weapons.
Another positive element of the assessment has to be the indepen- dence of East Timor, the situation having been at a standstill since 1975 when the territory was occupied by Indonesia. The General Secretary also insisted on the importance of upholding respect for interna- tional law after September 11, 2001 and in the context of the American decision for military intervention in Iraq in 2003. He lent active and highly diplomatic support to the process leading to the adoption of important conventions, such as the Treaty banning anti-personnel mines, and the Rome Statute instituting the International Criminal Court. He has also proposed a «global compact» to multinational companies, aiming to establish a code of conduct that had become indispensable in this era of globalisation.
On the other hand the assessment is less positive as regards the Israelo- Palestinian conflict. The roadmap is today a thing of the past, and the influence of the UN has been diluted in a «quartet» consisting of the United States, the European Union and Russia. As a matter of principle, it is not good for the UN to be on an equal standing with States. Another failure is the Western Sahara conflict where the situation is one of deadlock. Lastly, the policy for UN reform to which Kofi Annan gave impetus has been focused on the composition of the Security Council,
which in my view is not the essential aspect. I remain pessimistic on UN reform. It would perhaps be better to quite simply respect the Charter as it stands today. The Secretary General did not always have the means to achieve his objectives.
In an ever more global and interde- pendent world, with a hyperpower unilaterally deciding what it’s going to do, faced with threats of all kinds, what should the role of the Secretary General be?
In my view the Secretary General has a key role to play. He must personify the United Nations and promote the goals and principles of the Charter.
He naturally needs to take account of the realities of international relations, and of the desires of sovereign States.
His position is therefore a difficult one, but awareness of such realities should not lead him to overlook his main role. And then there is the question of the Secretary General’s personality. From the outset of his mandate, Kofi Annan dared to promote multilateralism, thus opposing Washington’s unilateral view and use of force. This earned him the Nobel Peace Prize and sent a strong message in support of the United Nations. Since then he has become increasingly pragmatic.
The position as United Nations Secretary General is an impossible job. Should the Secretary General be more a « secretary» or a « general
»?
The Secretary General is neither a secretary nor a general. He is a Secretary General.
Dag Hammarksjoeld, who was Secretary General from 1953 to 1961 and who died while on assignment in Katanga (formerly the Belgian Congo), does he still personify a kind of nostalgia of what the role should be, that is to say independent, courageous and effective?
You are quite right, that is what public opinion worldwide expects from the Secretary General. Even if his is a voice in the wilderness, he must speak up because it is his role and obligation to do so. It is a demanding, but noble calling.
The partenership
«The partnership between the United Nations and civil society is therefore not an
option; it is a necessity»
Kofi Annan, 22.06.2004
«Urgent challenges must be addressed by partenership among governement, business, civil society»
Kofi Annan, 4.02.2002
Geneva
«Geneva embodies what UN stands for- - an intersection of tolerance, peace, democracy»
Kofi Annan, 20.11.2006
« “Every citizen of the world, wherever he resides, is also a citizen of Geneva
Kofi Annan, 09.2000
3
