When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.


How Kofi Annan Allowed Putin To Become The Godfather Of Tyrants

Kofi Annan and Vladimir Putin
Kofi Annan and Vladimir Putin
André Glucksmann*

OP-ED - As the world’s eyes were focused on the Olympic Games in London and Bashar al-Assad's killer tanks and planes battered Syria throughout the summer, Kofi Annan"s resignation went almost unnoticed. But when the UN peace envoy to Syria threw in the towel, it marked the end of a shameful fiasco. The affable Ghanaian diplomat and Nobel Peace Laureate, who has been both number one and number two in the international organization, displayed goodwill, humanitarianism and pacifism but yielded only catastrophic results.

As the UN’s number two, responsible for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Rwanda, his passivity shielded the Hutu's genocide of the Tutsi people. In 1994, 800,000 civilians were murdered with machetes over a three-month period whilst Kofi Annan refused to send 5,000 blue helmets to stop the genocide. Ten years later, he released a statement saying he could have personally done more to stop the genocide. Rather than being punished, he was promoted to UN General Secretary, a post he would assume from 1997 to 2006. During that time, he stayed quiet as Vladimir Putin endeavored to slash the living population of Chechnya by a fifth.

Were we to believe that this tiny group of people of one million habitants included 200,000 terrorists? A similar silence met the North Korean famine (1998-2000), where mass starvation claimed between one and two million victims, leading to reports of cannibalism in the communist country. Kofi Annan, supported by democratic nations or not, was content to respect national sovereignty to an excessive extent: leaders can do as they please in their own countries, no matter the crimes they are committing. Only once did his compassionate heart twinge: he described Darfur as "hell on earth," when he condemned the government in Khartoum. However, not much changed. Infatuated with his important responsibilities: "We are the conscience of the world," he proclaimed in 1995 at the 50th anniversary of the UN. However, his resignation August 2 this year marked yet another failure.

Putin’s deadly cynicism: loud and clear

Whilst Kofi Annan went from failure to failure, Vladimir Putin has gone from success to success. He doesn't even try to hide deadly cynicism any more, which only escapes those who wish to ignore it. He officially declared that he would never give way to the supposed "liberal" Dmitry Medvedev, who was, and always will be Putin's little servant. He stubbornly reiterates that all the democratic opponents in Russia are a bunch of conspirators, paid off by the foreign secret services and especially the Americans.

Recently, he has bragged about having armed and prepared militias in South Ossetia since 2006, in order to attack Georgia, which says a lot about the Russian-Georgian war of 2008 and the crimes of the "militia" that the Kremlin swore were independent and out of control. However, to give some credit to Putin, otherwise an expert in lying and slander, one must note his absence of hypocrisy: he is a man who does not hide what he is doing, he asserts his power loud and clear.

What does it matter if Russia is failing to become modern and grow economically? What does it matter if it has reached impossible levels of corruption (on the same level as Zimbabwe) including a political and financial mafia? No matter its judicial and bureaucratic nihilism! Putin does not pretend, like the days of Marxist-Leninism, to promise a better future for his people. For Putin, his weapons of mass destruction are enough.

The post-Marxist prince is setting himself up as a global power by developing a nuisance strategy in every domain: from his nuclear playthings to his formidable arsenal of conventional weapons, used whenever he fancies.

These are phenomena that affect one another: the end of Annan's "world conscience" is directly correlated to the rise in Putin's power. The more the UN fails at protecting civilians (the 1973 resolution remains an exception and the rescue of Benghazi was David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy's doing), the more the grey zone widens where civilians are at the mercy of the fury of planes and tanks, and the more Putin strengthens his gang of despots, who are in the minority but nevertheless well armed: he is protecting them from outside intervention with his veto power in the Security Council, enthroning himself as the godfather of godfathers.

Making tyrants happy to the detriment of the people

Russia’s geriatric communist leaders have been replaced by a KGB member who knows neither scruples nor restraint. You have to be as naïve as a French diplomat or simply obsessed with elections, like Barack Obama and his European counterparts, to imagine for a second that the “butcher from the Caucasus” would bat an eye at the bloodshed in Aleppo, Homs or Damascus. "20,000 have died in a year!" cries the press and the NGOs. "Is that all?" Putin smirks, you can do better Bashar al-Assad.

After recent protests in Moscow, Russian leaders are determined to do everything to stop the "Arab spring" spirit from spreading to their streets. If Putin protects Assad, he needs to win to protect Putin in return. A bloodily repressed rebellion, like that in Chechnya, would serve as an example and a warning for the Russian people and its close neighbors.

There is no point in choosing another well-meaning Kofi Annan. There is no point in organizing conferences upon conferences and there's no point in taking the time to think about it some more, and then do nothing. There is no point in including Iranian mullahs, nor the Pope, in talks about Syria. As long as we ignore that the boss of the Kremlin wants to make tyrants happy to the detriment of the people, hell on earth will thrive.

For a year, Syrian civilians have stood up to a criminal and tortuous regime. It is true that they are not all innocent angels with clean consciences but as long as the rest of the word keeps abandoning them, unarmed, they will be forced to commit irreparable acts.

The drama taking place in the Security Council has gone on long enough. We cannot wait forever to see if Putin (and his Chinese comrades) ever becomes a little teary-eyed or if one humanitarian fiber in his body responds to the conflict in Syria. The failure of Kofi Annan is that of an idealist international community: for twenty years it has left its fate up to the phony unanimity of the Security Council, submissive to the diktats of Saint Vladimir, patron of the Lubyanka.

*The author is a writer and a philosopher.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


What's Spoiling The Kids: The Big Tech v. Bad Parenting Debate

Without an extended family network, modern parents have sought to raise happy kids in a "hostile" world. It's a tall order, when youngsters absorb the fears (and devices) around them like a sponge.

Image of a kid wearing a blue striped sweater, using an ipad.

Children exposed to technology at a very young age are prominent today.

Julián de Zubiría Samper


BOGOTÁ — A 2021 report from the United States (the Youth Risk Behavior Survey) found that 42% of the country's high-school students persistently felt sad and 22% had thought about suicide. In other words, almost half of the country's young people are living in despair and a fifth of them have thought about killing themselves.

Such chilling figures are unprecedented in history. Many have suggested that this might be the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but sadly, we can see depression has deeper causes, and the pandemic merely illustrated its complexity.

I have written before on possible links between severe depression and the time young people spend on social media. But this is just one aspect of the problem. Today, young people suffer frequent and intense emotional crises, and not just for all the hours spent staring at a screen. Another, possibly more important cause may lie in changes to the family composition and authority patterns at home.

Firstly: Families today have fewer members, who communicate less among themselves.

Young people marry at a later age, have fewer children and many opt for personal projects and pets instead of having children. Families are more diverse and flexible. In many countries, the number of children per woman is close to or less than one (Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong among others).

In Colombia, women have on average 1.9 children, compared to 7.6 in 1970. Worldwide, women aged 15 to 49 years have on average 2.4 children, or half the average figure for 1970. The changes are much more pronounced in cities and among middle and upper-income groups.

Of further concern today is the decline in communication time at home, notably between parents and children. This is difficult to quantify, but reasons may include fewer household members, pervasive use of screens, mothers going to work, microwave ovens that have eliminated family cooking and meals and, thanks to new technologies, an increase in time spent on work, even at home. Our society is addicted to work and devotes little time to minors.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest