SUNDAY SOLILOQUIES

Annan’s exercise in discretion

N J NANPORIA

Kofi Annan’s blunt declaration that the invasion of Iraq was illegal serves a multiple purpose. First it places on record beyond any equivocation the opinion of the man appointed to guard the spirit and letter of the UN charter. Second it helps to define what we mean when we speak of the United Nations and when we refer specifically to the Secretary General. Third the declaration, forthright, flat and decisive could not be more timely at a stage in Iraqi affairs when things are falling apart and no remedy is in sight.

It is not true as The Guardian newspaper has said that Annan’s verdict, though welcome, should have been delivered earlier. His “reservations” were made known on several occasions. They were reservations which anyone with the intelligence to do so could read. They were not categorical as it isn’t the business of the UN Secretary General to be unduly assertive if he is to do his job with a clear understanding of his responsibilities. Above all, it is obligatory for him to avoid involvement in a controversy. That he has now, of his own choice, fallen into one is an index not to a sudden access of courage but to the shocking crisis that has overcome Iraq and the clueless flounderings of Bush and his hapless acolytes.
Annan isn’t UN,

UN isn’t Annan

Few world issues have been complicated enough to blur the distinctions between the Secretary General and the United Nations. Iraq however is one of them. The UN is not and has never been Kofi Annan. The UN, in terms of the opinions it arrives at and what it chooses to do is the Security Council. Annan can advise it, pressurise it, warn it, discourage it or jolly it along but it is the handful of veto armed powers which has the final say.

These, if unanimous, can ignore the Secretary General and the Assembly as they have often done. if not they can threaten each other with the veto and paralyse the UN. In that case it is the convenient thing to blame the Secretary General and declare, as the US is apt to do, that the UN has failed to fulfil its responsibilities and is no longer relevant.

Neo-conservative challenge

What happens to a Secretary General who doesn’t co-operate? Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies tells us: “Albright and I and a handful of others (Michael Sheeham, Jamie Rubin) had entered into a pact in 1996 to oust Boutros-Ghali as Secretary-General of the United Nations, and a secret plan we called Operation Oriental Express, reflecting our hopes that many nations would join us in doing the UN in.” He was duly and predictably “done in”. So was the UN and the Charter. How glibly and stuffily The Guardian speaks of the Secretary General’s courage or the lack of it. If and when he opts to defy the Council or specifically the veto powers he is in effect bucking the system. In doing this he is in danger of unravelling the UN. That is the dilemma in which he is placed and the veto nations have exploited this while mouthing hypocritical concerns about the world organisation.

So, the situation in Iraq apart, why has Kofi Annan chosen to speak out now? Perhaps it is because the neo-conservatives under Bush have pushed its dominance in the Council to the point where it can no longer be left unchallenged. Mind you this dominance or the concept of it as a political utility or leverage has never been confined to the neo-conservatives. It says a great deal about Bush that it is only in contrast to him that someone like Bill Clinton has acquired a shine which is superficially attractive though false to the core. Clinton told the UN not long ago that “groups of nations should have the right to launch military action outside of the UN auspices to stop mass killings in their areas of interest”. No mass killings occurred in Iraq but obviously it was an “area of interest”. If that isn’t neo-conservative language what else can it be?

Manufacturedlegal opinion

So how has the US and its pups, Britain and Australia, reacted to the Annan initiative? Howard, the Australian one, unable to think up anything original, has bleated, “The legal advice we had at that time was that the action was entirely valid.” Blair echoed this by insisting that the British government’s top lawyer had reached the same conclusion. Rumsfeld, rather more self-revealing, said that Annan “had no right to question the legal judgment of UN member-states.” No right? Someone, put there to defend the charter has no right?

Those who decide unilaterally to go to war arrange for a legal opinion to suit what they want to do, and the contrary opinion of the UN Secretary General is swept aside. So what should now be recognised is that Annan has said the right thing at the right time in the right manner on behalf of the Charter and, no doubt, with an eye on the November vote. That will decide not just Bush’s future but how the UN is regarded in the years ahead that. Master of equivocation Colin Powell has called this a “side issue” and “not very useful.” Not useful to whom?

Notion of a code & the national flag

There is more than one way in which the national flag can be regarded. There is the need to ensure for it an appropriate degree of respect without denying the citizen the right to fly it on certain occasions. There is a need to define these occasions. There is the need to protect it from trivialisation or exploitation for political purposes. There is a need to decide whether a so-called flag code is the answer when so many codes for so many things have turned out to be an invitation to ignore the problem. There is the need not to elevate the flag to the point where excessive reverence places it beyond the reach of the humblest of citizens.

Patriotism can and is expressed in many ways and waving the flag at a cricket match is one of the more accessible ones. Should this right be withdrawn? Is a model who is draped in an attenuated flag expressing her patriotism of trivialising the flag?

In America where the reserve stock of sophistication is not too large there is a tendency to sophisticate to the limit, as its Supreme Court did some years ago when it decided that burning the national flag during a political demonstration is not an offense. Mr Justice Brennan declared: “We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute, the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.” That is one awe-inspiring view far removed from anything that suits a country like ours.

A political party can’t be denied the right to fly the flag for reasons that remain undefined which means that all parties can do so, and there is no advantage in flaunting a patriotism that can be taken for granted. The problem is where exploitation starts and patriotism ends, compounded by the related problem of how the question itself has become politicised. Note that many of the questions raised apply almost equally to the singing of the national anthem.

Indian cricket’s yatra-esque slide

Top cricket teams can be identified by two distinct characteristics. One is the way they are defeated. The other is the way they do not have to summon their resources and work themselves upto a level of excellence that ensures a win. On both counts the Indian team does not qualify. It lacks what can be called sustainable excellence. Sometimes, by dint of summoning all it potentially has, it manages to come out on top. Not due to collective effort but to the desperation-cum-determination of a few players who briefly are elevated to the level of heroes. It is like Advani’s yatras. There is an interlude of high feeling and ad hoc endeavour followed by sequential deflation which, in the case of Ganguly’s “boys”, can last a long or short time.

True all teams suffer from a yatra-like decline but seldom so characteristically as in the Indian team. Australia is a prime example of sustained excellence. It doesn’t usually have to make an immediately apparent effort. It achieves it in seeming case.

Against England in the latest encounter its effortlessness fell below that of the Brits but it wasn’t a yatra decline. It would help if the Indian captain refrains from ridiculous claims of excellence and concentrate on achievement, higher levels of fitness and promoting a collective spirit. The manner of his own dismissal has been atrocious.