Kofi's Rule.

• Author: Luttwak, Edward

Humanitarian Intervention and Neocolonialism

KOFI ANNAN was once a solid bureaucrat who could count on the loyalty of a so-called "African Mafia" among UN officials. He systematically promoted the career interests of the many Africans who found refuge in well-paid UN jobs from the chaotic, often violent politics of their home countries, and did nothing to energize the rare investigations of theft and corruption in the UN's notoriously leaky emergency relief programs for Africa (in which non-African UN officials were also involved). Even the worst offenders, who sold off food supplies meant for starving refugees, suffered no greater punishment than early retirement--with generous pensions. In return, Kofi Annan could count on the full support and admiration of the UN's African officials; and as he rose in the organization's ranks, he did so with the backing of the representatives of almost all African states.

Personable, bright and energetic, since his elevation as secretary-general he has become increasingly popular the world over. In the future, Annan may find even more admirers, but African governments are unlikely to remain among them. For in his new guise, no longer the smooth bureaucrat but rather the world statesman, Kofi Annan has just promulgated a new rule for the conduct of international affairs, one which in the long run is incompatible with the continued independence of most African states.

Echoing Clinton's justification for bombing Serbia and a phrase made famous by his predecessor, George Bush, in opening the new session of the UN General Assembly Annan declared that the world would no longer allow the sovereignty of member states to shield them from the consequences of outrageous misconduct: "Massive violations of human rights will not stand." After Kosovo and East Timor, it was clear what this meant.

While deploring the failure of NATO to seek Security Council authorization before bombing Serbia-Montenegro, Kofi Annan clearly endorsed the violation of its sovereignty in the name of the political rights of Kosovo's Albanians. And, of course, the UN officially accepted the outcome of the war by establishing the protectorate that is now ruling Kosovo under a plenipotentiary UN official. True, the UN still recognizes Serbia-Montenegro's sovereignty over that territory, but then NATO did too, before, during and after its bombing campaign. That, however, is a very peculiar sovereignty to say the least, because it excludes both Belgrade's administration and the presence of any of its troops from nominally Serbian territory. As for East Timor, yesterday it was still part of Indonesia; today it too has become a UN protectorate, pending the creation of an independent state and government.

Possible Candidates

WHAT WILL be the next Kosovo or East Timor? Or, rather, if both represented "massive violations of human rights"--Kofi Annan's announced standard for intervention--what other countries should now, by the same standard, be forced to surrender territories and populations to UN protectorates? There are some obvious candidates: Saddam Hussein's regime can no longer massacre Kurds, but is still oppressing the country's Shiite majority, and indeed Iraqis of all backgrounds, with habitual brutality. There is no doubt that the government of Slobodan Milosevic was harsh in Kosovo, as was the Indonesian army in East Timor, but if both warranted international intervention, why not the far worse plight of the Iraqis, who easily outnumber the combined populations of both?

Another obvious candidate is Afghanistan, where the Taliban, who control most of the country, are systematically depriving the female half of the population of its rights--not just the right to vote but even the right to go shopping. And then there is North Korea, where oppression is both constant and invisible, but where systematic government policy--notably the upkeep of vast armed forces and costly weapons projects--is starving the population. If it was so important to assure the political...