The State Of The Individual

      by Jim Hoagland, a syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C

       Published December 14, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune

 

      Annan's Oslo speech takes us into new territory

 

      WASHINGTON -- It is probably just as well for Kofi Annan that the subtly

      subversive speech he gave in Oslo on Monday did not receive the full

      attention of a world distracted by U.S. bombs destroying caves in

      Afghanistan or by diplomatic maneuvering over which foreign armies get to

      keep order in Kabul this winter.

 

      Think of the trouble Annan would be in if his bosses had focused instead

      on what he said.

 

      The secretary-general of the United Nations used his acceptance of the

      Nobel Peace Prize to challenge those bosses--the politicians, dictators

      and others who run the UN member states--to put individual rights ahead of

      the outdated notions of sovereignty and national advantage that most of

      them have championed, and many of them have long abused without fear of  

      UN sanction.

 

      "In the 21st century I believe the mission of the United Nations will be

      defined by a new, more profound, awareness of the sanctity and dignity of

      every human life, regardless of race or religion," the Ghanaian diplomat

      told his audience. "This will require us to look beyond the framework of

      states, and beneath the surface of nations or communities. We must focus,

      as never before, on improving the conditions of the individual men and

      women who give the state or nation its richness and character."

 

      In time I think the effect of Annan's words will be analogous to those

      spoken by William Faulkner in accepting the Nobel Prize for literature in

      1949.

 

      Carrying the burdens of a bad cold, his deep Southern accent and perhaps a

      drink or two, Faulkner stood so far away from the microphone that no one

      in the immediate audience understood a word he said--or that they had just

      heard what would come to be widely considered one of the 20th Century's

      greatest statements on the durability of the human spirit.

 

      It will also take time for the effect of Annan's words to work their way

      through the global system of governance. Their larger meaning depends as

      much on the fluid circumstances in which they were spoken as on their

      inherent dignity. His words will be tested and shaped as guidelines for

      the future by the actions of the United States and its coalition partners

      in the war on global terrorism, in Afghanistan and beyond.

 

      Echoing subversively through Annan's speech is a clear endorsement of

      humanitarian intervention by international coalitions when governments

      fail to protect--or actually attack--their own citizens. That concept

      drove Western and UN involvement in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor in the

      1990s. And the same sentiment of avoiding future war and genocide by

      preventive action today helps fuel a rising debate over what comes next

      once American bombs stop falling in Afghanistan.

 

      Washington is being urged by its coalition partners--including Russia--to

      stay engaged in Central Asia. Europeans even want U.S. troops to

      participate in a peacekeeping force for Afghanistan. But the Bush

      administration's leadership is deeply skeptical about humanitarian

      intervention and nation-building. It has waged the Afghan campaign to

      protect Americans and to pursue the murderers of Americans, a task it will

      continue beyond Afghanistan's borders if need be.

 

      That narrow focus was both justified and needed in launching the operation

      to destroy the joint partnership by the Taliban and Al Qaeda that hijacked

      Afghanistan. And the British-led stabilization force of 5,000 German,

      Bangladeshi, Turkish and other soldiers now under discussion for

      deployment into Kabul at Christmastime will function fine without GIs, as

      long as it has American military guarantees and U.S. pressure on local

      warlords.

 

      But the time has come for Washington to address in broad terms--rather

      than with mechanics and battlefield strategy--the question of how Sept. 11

      has affected U.S. engagement in the world.

 

      The Bush administration had not settled its ideological disputes on

      engagement abroad when America and the world were forced to pass

      through "a gate of fire," in Annan's memorable phrase. President Bush

      and his senior aides should soon set a framework of values and priorities for

      global engagement beyond the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Otherwise, the

      specific decisions and actions they take in responding to immediate ad hoc

      demands will confine them in a framework they did not consciously choose.

 

      Annan's words can be a help in such a task. But they are also a challenge

      to the secretary-general himself and to the United Nations, which has

      tolerated as member states some of history's most dangerous violators of

      human rights and of international law, such as Iraq. Only when the world

      organization abandons that double standard will Annan's words carry the

      force they deserve.