Annan did indeed point out that Israel
was excluded from U.N. institutions,
which it was, while other offenders
against international law were tolerated.
He did not name them but, for example,
Indonesia and Morocco also occupied
territories in defiance of U.N. resolutions,
while being indulged with repeated Se-
curity Council seats.
However, taking a non-partisan ap-
proach, Annan also condemned the set-
tlements, the response to the intifada, the
Lebanon war and even the Israeli-inspired
Western refusal to recognize Hamas’ vic-
tory in the 2006 Palestinian elections.
Similarly, he risked American obloquy
when he slowed the Blair-Bush rush to
war by trying to find a diplomatic solution
with Saddam Hussain, and tried to miti-
gate the effect of sanctions on Iraqi civil-
ians. But the final straw for the Washing-
ton warmongers was when Annan admit-
ted to a BBC reporter that the Ameri-
can/British invasion of Iraq was illegal. An
unholy alliance of neoconservatives, Is-
rael supporters and U.N.-haters jumped
on this “thoughtcrime” and, with the am-
plification power of the Murdoch media,
Fox and the Wall Street Journal,invented
the U.N. Oil For Food scandal, based on
alleged U.N. corruption in the program
that delivered food to Iraqi civilians in the
face of U.S. insistence on maintainingsanctions against the Iraqi regime.
There had indeed been widespread
evasion and profiteering from the sanc-
tions, but the entirely selective vitupera-
tion ignored tacit U.S. support for whole-
sale sanctions-busting by countries such
as Turkey and Jordan, let alone the com-
plexities of administering.
His detractors knew what they were
doing: it was not just an individual they
were slandering, it was an institution
they were trying to sabotage. Kofi Annan
epitomized several outstanding facets of
the role of a U.N. secretary-general, but
none better than being an inspiring pub-
lic face for the organization whose mani-
fested dignity and integrity helped em-
bellish the sad reality of a body often
hamstrung by the self-seeking sordid
squabbles of its member states. The at-
tack was both an attempt to punish him
for his temerity in saying that the Iraq
war was illegal, and to challenge the
prestige of the U.N. and the whole con-
cept of international order.AN UNLIKELY TARGET
The onslaught was all the heavier be-
cause his attackers sought to demolish
the reputation of someone whom the
world saw as the archetypal nice guy.
Annan’s people skills could have made
him a good electoral candidate. He re-
membered people and their families,
greeted everyone of all ranks affably, and
almost always kept his cool in the face of
provocation. The only time I saw him lose
his temper was when he reprimanded the
juvenile behavior of a Murdoch press
journalist who was baiting him about trivia
loosely associated with the Oil For Food
scandal. Some correspondents were
shocked that this creature fought back
when attacked. Others welcomed the
well-merited comeuppance.
When he became U.N. secretary-gen-
eral, observers debated whether Annan’s
years of service in the organization were
an asset or a disadvantage. It soon be-
came clear how useful they were, how-
ever, as he showed that he knew just
how the organization worked and was all
too aware of the competing pressures onU.N. staff, not least the political pres-
sures. The major dilemma is how to ac-
commodate the U.S., which is essential
for the effective functioning of the organi-
zation, while preventing the U.N. from
becoming just an instrument of Washing-
ton’s policies—which are, after all, often
opposed by most of the members.
Annan was no mere bureaucrat, he was
not after the big desk and the title. He
wanted to contribute to the world, and
thought the secretary-general’s office
was the best place to do so.
Kofi Annan was no mob orator. He
was not cut out for the bully pulpit or the
soapbox. When he was first elected, his
advisers pushed him into being coached
for public speaking but gave up—and
people realized that his quiet authority
was in some ways more effective than
soaring rhetoric and content-free dema-
goguery. People had to strain to listen to
him—but they did, because what he had
to say was worth listening to.
People sometimes say he was not out-
spoken or loud enough, but that was ac-
tually a strength. When he spoke, it was
not just a trite soundbite: he said what
had to be said, even if was sometimes
unpopular. When he came back from ne-
gotiating with Saddam Hussain and said
it was a testament to the efficacy of
diplomacy, not enough people listened to
his corollary—when backed with the
threat of force.
His statements were carefully weighed
before delivery and designedly non-
provocative. They were definitive and
authoritative, and usually soundly based
both in ethics and his own pragmatic
sense of what was possible. Although
Annan was an accomplished tightrope
walker, even he was wobbling by the
end, since while most of the member
states recognized there would be com-
peting imperatives, American administra-
tions of all complexions have a notorious
lack of empathy for other agendas be-
yond the re-election of the president.
Annan’s other breakthrough was team-
work. He had risen through the U.N.
ranks without acquiring the pompous
self-importance of many promoted above52 WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS OCTOBER 2018IndextoAdvertisers
American Friends of Birzeit
University................... 43
Alalusi Foundation............. 53
American Near East Refugee Aid
(ANERA)....... Inside Front Cover
Kinder USA................... 59
Land of Canaan Foundation..... 14
Mashrabiya................... 56
Middle East Children’s Alliance... 43
Mondoweiss................... 35
Museum of the Palestinian People 38
Palestinian Medical Relief Society
(Friends of UPMRC)........... 40
United Palestinian Appeal
(UPA).......... Inside Back Coverwilliamsr_51-53.qxp_United Nations Report 8/30/18 6:05 PM Page 52