When it comes to elegance, few can compete with the style of some African gentlemen of a certain age.
In the case of Kofi Annan, this is an elegance which goes beyond his impeccable suits and exquisite manners, and is expressed instead in a fine chemical balance between solemnity and sympathy.
At 71 and hailing from Ghana, Annan has a unique vision of the world. On the one hand, breadth, a legacy of his decade as Secretary General of the United Nations, and on the other, an affinity with Western culture (he has lived in Europe or the U.S. for more than 40 years and his wife is Swedish) matched by an intimacy with the secrets of the continent of his birth.
After leaving the United Nations in late 2006, following five years of bitter clashes with the government of George W. Bush, especially over the war in Iraq, Annan is dedicated to promoting the activities of the foundation that bears his name.
His aim is to use the credibility, reputation, experience and high level contacts built up over almost half a century at the UN to advise world leaders, to mediate in conflicts (in Kenya two years ago Annan stopped a civil war) and to fight poverty.
I met with Annan in his office in Geneva (Switzerland). He began by giving what diplomatic circles refer to as a ‘tour d'horizon’ of the global situation.
Question. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin wall, do you not feel sometimes, watching the world today, a certain nostalgia for the grim certainties of the Cold War? Was the world, though it may seem counter-intuitive, a more stable and less dangerous place?
Answer. When one thinks of the Cold War, the Great Powers had their spheres of influence, had leaders worldwide whom they controlled or over which they had considerable influence.
Also, they were involved in many civil wars that broke out, so in a sense, they could turn the situation on or off. They could control it. Today, there is no control. It has become every man for himself, and in some protracted civil wars there are unthinkable atrocities.
Fortunately, today there are fewer civil wars in Africa than 10 or 20 years ago. But those that remain are absolutely brutal.
One need only see what is happening in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, the Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda, what happens in Somalia, the political struggles in Sudan, both north and south and in Darfur, and it seems impossible to control it.
During the Cold War, with a little effort, contacts and telephone calls could calm the situation, turn it off. Today we can see that the Somalis have everyone tied hand and foot with their piracy.
Nobody has any idea how to control these elements or have enough influence over Somalia, either from within or from outside, to eliminate the phenomenon. That is, in some respects from the geopolitical point of view of civil wars, the situation is much more complicated and much worse.
JC. In other places is it as complicated as in Africa?
KA. Let me give the example of the near east.
We can see in that region, and I'm not just talking about Israel and Palestine but in the near east in general, what is happening today between Israelis and Palestinians, the total lack of progress in the peace process, the relationship between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and Iraq.
And from there to Iran, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Moreover, the division between Sunnis and Shiites is not confined to Iraq, it is a regional problem, and, of course, there is the nuclear issue in Iran and North Korea, so we have a very difficult situation.
JC. Latin America?
KA. For 10 or 15 years it was quieter and a good political, economic and social situation. Today we see new tensions. For the first time in a generation we've had a coup, that of Honduras. There are tensions between Venezuela and Colombia. We must also monitor what happens in that region.
JC. So the world is better today?
KA. I think we have some new threats and some old ones are returning, perhaps more dangerous, which we don’t know how to confront. That is, from my point of view, we live in a very complex and difficult world and, moreover, we must face the overwhelming problem of climate change in general, which is perhaps the greatest threat that awaits us and has an impact on virtually everything what we do.
JC. Do you see any light at the end of the tunnel?
KA: Yes. I was in China two weeks ago and the Chinese, thankfully, are beginning to realize that the biggest constraint to their development and growth may be the environment.
JC. So far they have resisted ...
KA: It's true. But now they see the pollution in Beijing and desertification, are aware of water shortages and the impact on people in the provinces, and realize they have to do something or will encounter great difficulties. It is a country that has always worried about chaos, so they are willing to do everything possible to prevent its occurrence. Of course, climate change brings droughts, floods, food shortages and many other things that we don’t yet know how to deal with.
JC: And then there's the global economic crisis ... Does the world have the leadership it needs to address these vast and complex challenges?
KA: We have a really serious problem when we must address all these issues at a time when there is distrust in leaders, both corporate and political. And I try to explain to my political friends to put themselves in the place of the man on the street.
When an ordinary person needs help – to pay their medical bills, or to help with the schooling of their children, or if the neighbourhood has no water, they tell him: there is no budget, no money, and we can’t help.
Suddenly, the financial system and banks are stuck in a jam and that same government that had no money or budget gets billions and billions to rescue them.
I understand when people say that credit is like blood flowing through the system and, when there is no credit, everybody suffers and we need to address this.
From the economic standpoint, it makes sense. But it is difficult to explain to the citizen who has been told that the Government has no money for water and yet it has billions for banks. That undermines confidence, it seems that money has always been there but this is reserved only for friends. Not for others. So there is this problem of lack of confidence.
The other issue that has been discovered is the supposed idea that the market is intelligent. Let's leave it to the market: that too is gone. We are therefore in a very fluid situation.
Some politicians are pleased that the governments are once again intervening. They can play their role, but they will do so at a time when the population is very concerned, unemployment is high and rising and people do not necessarily believe that governments are on their side.
JC: Could we define the era in which we live as the age of confusion?
KA: Yes, I think it might be a good term, meaning that there are fewer certainties. Note that this began with the Cold War. The two sides were very safe. And there were rules. We do not have that certainty. There are no rules, no assurances. Major changes are occurring that are troubling and disturbing for people and leaders.
JC: When you look at the world today, do you not see much in terms of clear and strong moral leadership?
KA: It's a tough world for leaders. Not a promising outlook. In today's world, some governments say, "Let's fight for human rights, we will fight for democracy, let's do this and that ..." and immediately collide with economic and financial interests. Recent reports on Barack Obama during his visit to China, asked the question: “Has he shown leadership on the question of human rights and applied pressure?” But China has so much economic influence, some even call China "the banker of America", that, when you are in that position, you speak to the Chinese in a different manner, and the question of purity and moral clarity fades. The truth is that, at present, the Chinese are not prepared to hear lessons.
JC: So being a leader is particularly difficult today?
KA: Yes. Apart from anything else, the current climate has also changed considerably. Due to television and the Internet, everything is instant, and a leader is constantly being evaluated, constantly being criticized, and it is very easy to mobilize people against or in favor of someone, and leaders become very cautious. In fact, some say we live in a world where leaders read and do not lead. They read the polls instead of leading.
JC: And the blogs ...
KA: That's it. Consultants bring them things and say, "Have you seen this? Do you know what this is doing to us, to the party?"
JC: What is your view of the Obama phenomenon?
KA: I think the Obama phenomenon has been amazing. To understand this we must go back to the beginning of George W. Bush. When Bush entered the White House he was very dynamic, he and his team were very aggressive. Frankly, they frightened reporters. Things only took a step forward when Bush began to fall, but during the first four or five years, he dominated the scene.
Earlier, I mentioned that the notion of the market being intelligent had been rejected.
The other idea that is on its last legs is that everything can be fixed by force. Iraq, Afghanistan and, to some extent, Pakistan are showing this. The Bush regime went to such countries, especially Iraq, convinced that it would be very easy to solve the situation by force. Those who tried to dissuade them received harsh criticism. Now I think everyone understands that this force is not the solution.
JC: And that's where Obama came in?
KA: Hence came the Obama campaign with his new message: "I want to work with others, I listen, I believe in multilateralism, which is the only way forward, we lost the respect of others and we need to recover and be respectful ourselves too." All that resonated with Americans, some of whom were uncomfortable when travelling abroad because they were confronted with the phenomenon of what America had become, and that they didn’t understand. So they were glad to have a change, to give Obama a chance. He started well, but faces an incredible number of problems. I mean, when you start with two wars and an economic downturn in a country where 40 million people lack health care, and want to do something about it, you do not have it easy.
And expectations are high. Not long ago I said we should help him, and do so by reducing those expectations. But the fact he got all that support and encouragement from young people is an indication that there is a longing not only in America but around the world to have good leadership, people want to be led in the right direction. There is a global need to which Obama responds, and I truly desire it to succeed, we should all do so, because if he doesn’t, next time, the pendulum will swing the other way.
JC: Could it be, perhaps, impossible to have the clear and strong moral leadership that we crave today, which we dreamed that Obama would provide, because of objective circumstances, because there are so many of these cross-cutting issues of which you speak of that when one tries to be an undisputed moral leader, you hit against a wall?
KA: We started talking about how much the world has changed since the Cold War ... and we have reviewed the phenomenon that the U.S. talks of a unipolar world, which I never believed. I always said that the world is multipolar, because even when they spoke of a unipolar world, China said it was a pole, Russia said it was a pole, India ... and the European Union, of course, was a pole, ie, the behavior of each is a reflection of how the world is and where it is situated.
We now live in a world where there are so many centers of power that even America has had to acknowledge that. It is practically impossible to hope to have a personality that transcends all the poles, a Nelson Mandela of global dimensions, especially with the communications systems that are available.
JC: As we saw in Obama's journey to China. Is everything that delicate now?
KA: Yes, it's really delicate. You can see this in Europe's relationship with Russia, where the Europeans need Russian oil and gas and have to deal with someone like Putin, who plays hardball. There may be things they say to Russia in private, but they won’t give lectures in public.
JC: And that, in turn, harms the image of strong, proper leadership.
KA: But I must say ... that leadership does not necessarily have to be something of global scale and importance. If a leader governs in his own country, he is concerned with the welfare of its people, provides moral clarity and knows how to lead, others will react accordingly. Mandela did not intend to rule the world. He was dealing with his own community, trying to free its people and adopt a principle of forgiveness and reconciliation that was a great lesson for people worldwide. So, if we have a leader who behaves well at home, people react.
JC: Speaking of the example of Mandela, what can Africa offer that is of value to the world, something that we can learn from?
KA: It's a very good question. It is curious that, recently, I've been talking to someone about the Africa of my youth, when we listened with great care to the elderly. In Ghana we use a lot of proverbs to teach and give lessons. For example, if I had gone to see my father to say I was tired of my boss, who was unfriendly, aggressive, and I was going the next day to tell him what I thought, to tell him to go to hell, he would have heard me in silence and probably said, "Son, calm down. Do not hit a man when you have your fingers between his teeth." And he would not have said more. In other words, go and find a solution.
JC: A pragmatic approach to problem solving?
KA: As a child, I used to wake up in the morning and see the elders talking about important issues. The rule was: if there is a problem, then discuss it and talk and talk until you find a solution. Dialogue, patience, the ability to forgive: these are the lessons that Africa has to offer.
JC: However, if people don’t hold leaders to account, won’t they abuse people’s forgiveness?
KA: Yes, the patience of Africans and their ability to forgive ... also has a downside, in the sense that we are too patient, too easily forgiving and accept many things, and sometimes, that they are exploited by aspiring dictators who take over the country and get to do too much without being asked taken to account, taking advantage of the patience and good will of the people. If leaders have been corrupt, if they have raided the national coffers, we must hold them accountable. We must set the limit at some point.
JC: But it is hard to fix it, right? The search for pure justice can lead to the worst political results ...
KA: Yes, we have seen this with Sudan. People ask: "Did we have to prosecute Bashir? Has this worsened the problem? How can we now get him to cooperate?" And others say that to stem the killing, they had to indite, because then he would be more isolated and would not have had as much power as before. It is a matter of knowing the order of things. I think you cannot have justice without peace. You cannot have peace without justice, but the question, when you're in the midst of conflict, is what order these must come.
Most people would say that first you should stop the killing and then seek justice, which is what happened in Yugoslavia with Milosevic and Karadzic. Others say that sometimes, justice should be used as a brake to warn people that they must stop killing. Every crisis is different, every town is different, and we must be sensitive to see the specifics of each particular crisis and make a decision. When one acts as mediator, one has to think what the biggest need is of the people concerned. I could intervene in a complex situation and say, as the U.S. and the West do often, "if you stop fighting we will help you and provide economic development.” But maybe that's what these people are least thinking about. Perhaps their main concern is survival, fear they will be killed. If a person's going to be eliminated, why would you need economic development? So the first thing to do is get to the bottom of the matter.
JC: You have had an incredible life and have been through many things, among others, during the Iraq war. Now you are retired from public life as such, but still working ... "Does there not come a time when so much cynicism, so much cruelty, so much greed, makes one wonder, why bother? Why not forget about everything and really retire from the tribulations of the world?
KA: When I left the UN, I thought we had set up many things but much remained to be done, particularly in our African continent. And some of those things, like food security, I had promised myself that I would boost when I stopped being the secretary. But I also have the attitude that if I can help someone, I'm doing something important. When I talk to young people and they ask me what to do to become good global citizens, I say it starts in your community, your school, do what they can well and go from there. If someone sees something wrong, organize your friends and do something about it. Or say: "Enough. Do not take it anymore." Those who are subject to harassment or intimidation, it gives them the courage and strength necessary to continue fighting. Therefore, while I still have the energy, and I am fortunate to have lived the life and the experiences I have lived, I think I'll still have something to offer. So I'm still working, although I know that at some point, to quote my good friend Mandela, there will come a time when I will also retire from my retirement. The withdrawal, as I discovered, requires much effort.