In reading Gwynne Dyer’s latest column, “Bush’s response to 9/11 changed international order”, I can across the following line that bothered me (more than the others).
[…] (Kofi) Annan is only the secretary general of the United Nations, so the big powers (Russia in this case) don’t have to listen to him, but he is a clever man and his job is to watch over the peace of the world. National leaders may care about that too, but they also have a hundred other priorities; world peace is Annan’s primary – almost his sole – responsibility.
In thinking about North Korea, Iran, Sudan, etc. I thought that Annan is doing a bang-up-job in the cause of peace. I remember saying to a friend of mine that peace is not the absence of war. But alas, I should not have gotten my mouth in front of my knowledge of the English language. You see, in trying to come to grip with what I thought was a logical inconsistency I like to start with first principles, in this case, the dictionary:
Peace: 2. freedom from or the cessation of war
Well call me ignorant; peace is, by definition, the absence of war. So by extension, world peace is the absence of world war. In this context preserving world peace is akin to preserving the status quo or at best détente (an easing of strained relations esp. between nations – as you can see I looked this one up as well). In my mind preserving world peace works pretty well for the western world but much of the rest of the world is left living under brutal dictators or despots. It leads to such decisions as propping up the Hussein government in Iraq through the UN Oil-for-Food debacle or the UN debating sanctions against Sudan, which if implemented will lead to countless deaths and another useless UN Oil-for-Food program. These policies do not get to left’s favorite calling card, “root causes”.
It seems to me that Kofi Annan should have a new sole responsibility – world freedom.
Freedom: 2. personal or civic liberty. 3. the power of self-determination; independence if fate or necessity. 5. the political right to act, speak, etc. as one pleases without interference
This is a word I can get behind.
Note: Definitions from Oxford Canadian Dictionary 2001
