Don’t hold your breath, new UN boss won't make any difference

UN Secretary-General-designate Antonio Guterres speaks during the ceremony for the appointment of the Secretary-General during the 70th session of the General Assembly October 13, 2016. PHOTO | AFP

What you need to know:

  • The choice of UN secretary-general is usually based on the candidate’s willingness to accommodate the wishes and political interests of the five permanent members of the Security Council namely the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China.
  • Despite his charm and diplomatic skills, there was nothing that former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan could do to prevent the US and Britain from invading Iraq in 2003.
  • Ban Ki-moon, who is now completing his term as UN secretary-general, has proved to be a weak administrator.
  • While the UN asks governments to sign up to anti-corruption conventions, it completely fails to prevent fraud, corruption, and theft internally.

When I worked at the United Nations, I really did believe that the organisation served a vital purpose in a world riddled with poverty, inequality, and conflict.

However, like many idealistic UN employees who join the organisation believing that their work will have a meaningful impact on people’s lives, but who then become disillusioned with its sluggish bureaucracy, its inability to curb internal corruption, and its gross wastefulness and incompetence, I now have a more realistic view of this intergovernmental body.

I now know that the UN was not created to save the world from the scourge of war or to promote peace and development, but to maintain the global hegemony of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, countries that have either directly or indirectly waged and/or participated in wars or supplied arms to the many conflicts that have taken place since the birth of the UN in 1945.

All these countries are major weapons manufacturers and suppliers. These weapons have fuelled wars in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

I also know that few UN secretaries-general are selected by these same countries for their integrity, neutrality, clean record, or willingness to bring about radical reforms at the UN.

On the contrary, the choice of UN secretary-general is usually based on the candidate’s willingness to accommodate the wishes and political interests of the five permanent members of the Security Council and the richest and most influential countries.

Even when a secretary-general expresses opposition to these interests, he is usually ignored. Despite his charm and diplomatic skills, for instance, there was nothing that former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan could do to prevent the US and Britain from invading Iraq in 2003.

Nor could he refer then president George Bush and prime minister Tony Blair to the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

It is important to note that Annan was appointed secretary-general despite having failed to prevent a genocide in Rwanda when he was head of the UN’s peacekeeping operations.

It was also during his tenure that the UN’s oil-for-food programme in Iraq lost billions of dollars to fraud and corruption.

Ban Ki-moon, who is now completing his term as UN secretary-general, has proved to be a weak administrator. He failed to bring about significant reforms at the UN or to prevent the conflict in Syria from escalating.

EMPLOYEES IGNORED

Mr Ban also distinguished himself as an enemy of UN whistleblowers; he appealed several decisions of the UN’s internal justice system that favoured whistleblowers. Under his watch, the UN’s whistleblower policy was severely weakened.

Wrongdoing exposed by UN employees was ignored. One UN employee who reported sexual abuse of children by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic was even suspended from his job while the abuse continued.

And one head of a UN agency was allowed to continue in his job despite several allegations of abuse of authority against him.

Mr Antonio Guterres, the former socialist prime minister of Portugal who was also the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for 10 years, is taking over the reins of the UN at a time when Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are in turmoil and when the refugee crisis has become a polarising issue in Western nations.

Will he be able to stem these crises? Given the record of his predecessors, it seems highly unlikely.

One of the major problems confronting the UN is that despite its inspiring rhetoric and the enormity of its mandate, it has failed to address its internal contradictions.

For example, the fact that yet another male was chosen to fill the secretary-general’s post, even though there were several equally qualified female candidates, goes to show that the UN is a patriarchal organisation that only pays lip service to gender equality.

And while the UN asks governments to sign up to anti-corruption conventions, it completely fails to prevent fraud, corruption, and theft internally. On the contrary, those who expose these and other acts of wrongdoing are swiftly reprimanded or retaliated against.

If Mr Guterres wants to be an effective secretary-general, he must address these contradictions. For starters, he could stop the UN’s culture of silence and denial that has allowed all manner of crimes to take place under its watch.