Kofi Annan's Interview: Africa, the black man's burden

With his continent gripped by famine and corruption, Kofi Annan despairs of its leaders, says William Shawcross

Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the United Nations, was astonished to read last week that Nelson Mandela had said America and Britain are ignoring the UN, "and there are many people who are whispering that it is because the secretary-general is black". "I don't want to argue with Mandela, who is a great man," he told me, "but I'm very surprised he said that. In the almost four years I've been in this job, colour has not been an issue. I'm not so naive as to say that discrimination does not exist, but it has not impeded me in any way. It has had absolutely no impact on me or on my wife."

Indeed, having followed Annan's career and work for the past six years, its most extraordinary feature seems to be the almost universal acceptance (and often acclaim) of the first black secretary-general.

Annan comes from Ghana, his wife is Swedish; they are in every sense a striking couple. In some ways they symbolise the most positive features of the globalised world to which Annan is trying to bring norms of behaviour.

Although Annan has been critical of America, he does not accept Mandela's view that it and Britain are "introducing chaos" into international relations by appointing themselves world policeman and bombing Serbia and Iraq without specific security council resolutions.

"Obviously governments should act within council resolutions." said Annan. "But there are times when that may not be possible." It is in such dilemmas and moral ambiguities that his job abounds.

I first met him in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s when he was in charge of peacekeeping. He seemed a remarkable man, a career UN official who was not a bureaucrat, who had a dignity and a calm that were quite unusual. Until 1996 the idea that a career official would get the top job was never even a possibility.

However, in early 1996, when it became clear that Washington would try to force out Boutros Boutros-Ghali, I told Annan that he might well inherit the post. He laughed and said he was not at all sure that he wanted it. Who can blame him; it is the job from hell, having to mediate between all the competing demands of the member states.

The French resisted his appointment, seeing him as an ally of "les Anglo-Saxons", and they promoted French-speaking west African candidates. But Annan was elected and the French are now among his greatest fans.

Annan has just published We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, a 57-page report about the impact of globalisation on the world. It is concise and well written, but I asked him what was its point.

"It's an attempt to take stock of where the human family stands at this time, to identify our main challenges and to sketch out an action plan for dealing with them. I wanted to emphasise that globalisation defines our era. In some ways the corporate world was the fastest to catch on to this; it operates across borders, often without governments being involved. Policy makers and politicians are now playing catch-up."

Unlike the protesters in Seattle, Annan does not decry globalisation. "It has brought many benefits but it also has a negative aspect. Whole regions are excluded, especially Africa. We see incredible inequities and exclusion which, if unchecked, will create serious problems and lead to a backlash against globalisation," he said.

When I put it to him that Africa's leaders are often responsible for Africa's problems, he agreed. Indeed, he said that Africa was one of his greatest frustrations.

"The quality of the leaders, the misery they have brought to their people and my inability to work with them to turn the situation around are very depressing. Unless we find a way of getting them to focus on resolving conflicts and turn to the key issues of economic and social development, the efforts that we are all making will be for naught.

"In many countries the wrong kind have made it to leadership. They see power for the sake of power and for their own aggrandisement rather than having a real understanding of the need to use power to improve their countries."

Asked what are the most important prescriptions in his report, he said: "For the alleviation of poverty and the fight against Aids. Also the possible use of technology to allow Third World countries to leapfrog many of the painful development changes that others had to go through. Last but not least, the maintenance of the environment."

I suggested that we had all seen such prescriptions before and were they not often mere pious exhortations?

"I tried to put forward some achievable targets as well as concrete proposals. I am trying to galvanise political will, real international focus."

Unfortunately, he has found that all too often governments support resolutions to placate domestic opinion and then never give the UN the resources to carry them out. Apart from Africa, the members of the UN are his greatest frustration, he says. "They all say they want to strengthen and reform it but it is very difficult to get them to move. I've had proposals on the table since 1997 which have not been dealt with. I can't even get an answer."

I suggested fudge, consensus and compromise were the way of the world and the UN just reflects ourselves.

"We do live in a messy world, but I think that not every problem can be fudged and one has to be able to identify those situations where action is needed and have the will to follow through."

I asked him whether by that he meant that the UN should have the power to overthrow regimes such as Mugabe's in Zimbabwe.

"No. The UN through its work and standards, and given the awareness developing around the world, has set standards and benchmarks as to the rights of people and as to how leaders should behave, but the removal of leaders is up to the country concerned."

The lesson of many of the UN interventions in the past decade, whether in Cambodia, Haiti, Bosnia or Kosovo, is that the UN cannot impose the ideals of the democratic world.

However, I reminded him, he had recently said that in the new world massive violations of human rights would no longer be tolerated. After Kosovo and East Timor, sovereignty was now limited.

"Yes, I was basically arguing that states exist to protect citizens and not vice versa, and they can no longer use sovereignty as a shield to hide behind."

"But article 2.7 of the UN charter prevents intervention in domestic affairs," I said.

"Yes but the charter goes on to say that we should protect future generations from the threat of war and today the threat is mostly from internal not international wars. The charter is written in the name of 'We the peoples'. It's a document that is humane and centred on individuals."

That's all very well, I said, but surely it all depends on where they are. We cannot and will not help the Chechens or the Tibetans, because we cannot risk taking on Russia or China.

"The fact that we cannot protect everyone does not mean we cannot help where we can. In the case of East Timor, pressure worked. Indonesia was concerned about its international standing and so allowed in a peacekeeping force."

Another terrible famine now threatens the Horn of Africa - Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea, which have been at war since 1998. Was the famine there caused by war or weather?

"A combination. Weather, mainly, but war has exacerbated it. The World Food Programme wants to use the Eritrean port of Massawa for supplies but it is closed by war."

Ethiopia has alleged that we in the West have to have skeletons on our television screens before we react. Is that why it has taken so long to counter the famine there?

"I don't think that is correct in this situation. There has been an adequate response by the world. We have had food supplies there - they have not been distributed properly. It is a tough terrain - and Ethiopia is a huge country but the government could have done a better job of distribution."

Despite Mandela's outburst about American and British racism, Annan is well regarded by all the leading members of the UN. He has introduced a new candour at the UN, and is attempting (despite governments) to reform its bureaucracies. He is under pressure to stand again for a second five-year term at the end of next year.

For his own sake I hope he can leave the job from hell. But under the "Buggins's turn" rules that operate at the UN, Asia would inherit the post and there is no plausible Asian candidate in sight. If the man from Ghana has to do another term, his sacrifice will be the UN's gain.