Kofi Annan has written an article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. He begins by stating the obvious such as that today’s threats are different depending on whom you ask and discussing the interconnectedness of many of them. As can be learned in any introductory course to international relations, he explains that today’s threats don’t stop at national borders and that cooperation is necessary to deal with international threats such as terorrism, disease (AIDS, SARS etc.), poverty and environmental degradation.

He then goes on to cite terrorism as one of the most pressing tasks at hand. He tap dances around concrete solutions by carefully dropping choice words and phrases in order to please everyone such as: “And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning: it cannot include the right deliberately to kill or maim civilians.” The second most important task for him is proliferation, especially with regards to non-state actors, a phrase sure to please American ears. Lastly, he calls for more to be done to maintain stability in war torn lands so that they don’t fall back into a vicious cycle. His solution is more burocracy called the Peacebuilding Commission.

Perhaps most importantly he says “When prevention fails, and all other means have been exhausted, we must be able to rely on the use of force. However, we need to find common ground on when and how.” however he offers no solution and remarks merely that the Security Council must be ready to do so (with regard to finding common ground). More empty words. He says that when states fail to protect their citizens (as in cases of genocide and such), the responsibility goes to the international body. However, as usual, only the Security Council can authorize action and considering the world can’t even agree about who gets to be on it, the bickering won’t magically stop with new members.

He next covers the usual poverty ground and the need for deeds not words, something that he may as well tattoo on his forehead so he doesn’t have to repeat it every other sentence. While prevention is an important part of international security, the world will continue to worry about real threats like Iran and North Korea before worrying about building roads in the Congo. The cold hard truth is that until a number of situations are settled, sub-saharan African isn’t of much interesting to anyone no matter how much they talk about wanting to help people. If Kofi plans to send more money there to build infrastructure, he better be willing to send soldiers and a UN administration to oversee the work as well as that not a single dollar touches the hands of the local government lest it never be seen again.

At the very least, Annan recognizes that the UN is in dire need of change lest it join the League of Nations and bird. However, his entire article doesn’t offer any new solutions or insight into the vast problems of the ailing international body. Credit must be given to his conculuding paragraphs though, where he cedes ground to the realists:

Today, as never before, the rights of the poor are as fundamental as those of the rich, and a broad understanding of them is as important to the security of the developed world as it is to that of the developing world.

For once I’ll agree with you Kofi. We should be worried about the third world if only for the sake of our own security. However we need to worry less about the poor and more about the most imminent threats, when they are out of the way, we’ll have time to fix the lesser includes. However, while Kofi gets points for dropping all the right phrases to please those who want to redefine the rules of engagement, he forgets a simple point: No country will ever cede it’s national security to the UN. A less binding security council would be more realistic. Decision making on national security matters will never be handed over. Annan says that “the UN has no vested interest in the status quo” but only tells us what we want to hear, not realistic solutions to the problems at hand.

Despite the failings of the UN, it’s greatest flaw isn’t something Annan didn’t mention, but something the UN charter does. The UN members all have to agree to accomplish things and whether that will ever happen is one of history’s great questions. The ability of member states to realize they have a vested interest in bettering the world will make or break the United Nations. The UN is down on the mat and the ref is counting. Whether the UN get up before it gets KO’d is up to all of us. Should we fail, well, in the words of Dave Chappel:

“Kofi Annan, you think I’m gonna take orders from an African. You may speak 16 languages, but you gonna need em when you in Time Square sellin fake hats. I know Gucci when I see it nigga I’m rich.”

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « Canada hardening on Iran
• » Curzon’s New Map: Cold War II