UNITED NATIONS: Kofi Annan To Be Elected U.N. Secretary-General

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Dec 13 1996 (IPS) - Kofi Annan, a career U.N. staffer and currently head of the United Nations’ peacekeeping department, will be the world body’s next secretary-general, the U.N. Security Council confirmed Friday.

The 15-member Council approved Annan, a Ghanaian diplomat who is under-secretary-general for peacekeeping, by a unanimous vote in a secret “straw poll” before formally voting to recommend him to the 185-nation General Assembly as the next U.N. chief. The Assembly is expected to vote Monday by consensus for Annan to serve as secretary-general from Jan. 1 through December 2001.

“I am very glad to announce that, for the first time, white smoke is coming from the ‘Sistine Chapel’ of the Security Council,” Council President Francesco Paolo Fulci of Italy said. He noted that three other candidates opposing Annan, all of whom were from Francophone Africa, had withdrawn on Friday.

Even Boutros-Ghali, who had lingering hopes of keeping his seat for at least a few more years, congratulated Annan as his successor.

“The secretary-general warmly congratulates Kofi Annan,” U.N. spokeswoman Sylvana Foa said. “The secretary-general is pleased that the decision was unanimous and was especially gratified that Africa has the office of the secretary-general for a second term.”

The approval of Annan, following months of haggling between the United States and incumbent Secretary-General Boutros Boutros- Ghali of Egypt, was only achieved after France — which had indicated it might veto Annan in seven previous straw polls — accepted him.

Only on Thursday did the Council’s three African states — Egypt, Guinea-Bissau and Botswana — swing to Annan’s side, following several weeks in which the Ghanaian suffered from the perception that Washington, which blocked Boutros-Ghali from a second term, favoured him.

But once Annan, who led as a candidate in all the straw polls, was confirmed, African diplomats quickly lauded him as a strong choice.

“With his temperament, moderation and good management style as a consensus-builder, Kofi Annan will achieve the objectives of Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali,” said Ambassador Roble Olhaye of Djibouti. Olhaye also hoped that Annan’s support from the United States would help to encourage Washington to support the United Nations more strongly.

“He has been at the United Nations for 30 years, he has done a great job at the peacekeeping department, and he is a sub-Saharan African,” said Ambassador Legwaila J. Legwaila of Botswana.

Still, many African diplomats privately have been wary of Annan’s candidacy, precisely because Washington clearly encouraged Annan’s run following its announcement in June that the United States would veto Boutros-Ghali.

The United States remained quiet in its support of Annan Friday, with a senior U.S. official saying only that “we are extremely pleased that the Council has succeeded in developing a consensus on a viable candidate for secretary-general.”

U.S. politicians, who have generally good relations with Annan, had lost confidence that Boutros-Ghali would serve their needs, particularly by cutting U.N. expenses. The move led to considerable bitterness here, especially because Washington owes the United Nations some 1.5 billion dollars.

Others have said privately that Annan may not be as strong or decisive a leader as Boutros-Ghali, and thus may be more vulnerable to pressure from the most powerful U.N. nations, such as the United States and Western European countries.

But Annan’s record at the peacekeeping office — during which time he guided the activities of more than 70,000 troops in as many as 18 conflicts — also displayed streaks of independence from the bidding of the main global powers.

When the United Nations was being blamed for the failure of its peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Annan noted wryly, “Sometimes it is the position of the United Nations to be the scapegoat for the failure of nations to act.”

When France in 1994 decided unilaterally to deploy troops to south-western Rwanda, Annan cautioned, “If countries begin to go solo…it undermines the international and collective effort.”

Yet the peacekeeping official also repeatedly complained of a lack of support for U.N. activities by the great powers at a time of numerous internal conflicts, arguing the United Nations had to do “too much with too little”.

The challenges now facing Annan will be steep. There is no guarantee that Washington will enter into a better working relationship with the United Nations or repay its debts, especially with a right-wing U.S. Congress still wary of the world body.

Washington clearly expects greater cuts in U.N. expenditure, which will be difficult to achieve painlessly following a 10 percent cut of U.N. Secretariat staff over the past year.

Annan also must convince Africans that, even though he has been in the U.N. system almost continuously since 1962 and has lived most of the past two decades in the United States, he can be trusted to defend the region’s interests.

There is also the question of what France will gain from acceding to Annan’s candidacy. U.N. sources claim that, to placate France and avoid a veto, the United States and its allies had to promise that Annan’s successor to head the peacekeeping department would be French.

Other sources say that the United Nations’ myriad economic bodies could be streamlined into one main economic department, possibly to be headed by Under-Secretary-General Jean-Claude Milleron, who heads the department for economic and social information and is French.

Those changes may not be fleshed out until January. For now, though, Annan can rest assured that his relationship with the United States figures to be at least slightly more gentle than the fractious one between Boutros-Ghali and U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright, who will now be Washington’s next secretary of state.

Albright is to be replaced at the United Nations mission by Congressman Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is regarded, like Annan, as a quiet, moderating presence.