„Why am I here? How did I come here?”

By using a tunnel, Kofi, guiding you directly into our V.I.P.-saloon-car …
You know, a tunnel is, by definition, a direct connection between two geographical points, which, otherwise, could only be connected through a time-consuming de-tour. On this voyage, we are going to use a kind of tunnel-system, which will allow us to connect different points in history as well.

“Why was I invited?”

Well, we are inviting people into our V.I.P.-saloon-car whom we suspect to suffer from a tunnel-view.

„A tunnel-view?”

Tunnel-view is the expression for a somehow restricted visual field. Only objects, which are situated, more or less, along a line directly in front of you can be recognized, objects close by, on the left, on the right, above or below, are not noticed. That is similar to the view through a tunnel; you will only see objects beyond the tunnel’s end.
If we widen the meaning of SEEING, rather in the sense of CONSIDERATION, PERCEPTION or RECOGNITION, the term TUNNEL-VIEW is also getting a wider meaning. A tunnel-view in that sense would then mean INCAPACITY or INCOMPETENCE to recognize, and judge something in order to connect it to a context.
Translated into colloquial language, you also talk about BLINKERS, because such blinkers prevent the leading horse from recognizing what is happening right and left of its trail, thus it would not divert its attention from the given task …
You could say, we have invited into our saloon-car draught-horses with and without blinkers!

„And to which category do I belong to?”

To find this out, we have invited somebody, who has looked around in your life, Kofi, as it was written down, this year, by your in-official biographer.
Ozodi Osuji, PhD, his reviewer, is going to provide answers to five questions.

²⁴ KOFI ANNAN: A MAN OF PEACE IN A WORLD OF WAR

Firstly: What shall we make of Annan?

He is a consummate bureaucrat, understood organizational politics, and played his part without bringing down the house. (African politicians tend to run their countries to the ground; see Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.) His is quite an accomplishment, for to climb the UN bureaucratic ladder, from the lowest administrative rank (Administrative officer 1) to the highest administrative class, the Secretary General, is no small achievement, particularly for an African battling white racism.

Secondly: What is Annan’s legacy?

The jury is still out on that one.

Thirdly: What is his liability?

Many have criticized the UN’s slow response to the Rwanda pogrom. Annan, an African, was in charge of refugee issues during the Hutu killing of Tutsis and his response to intelligence indicating what was in the offing apparently was slow. All the facts are not yet in, so judgment must be differed on this issue. Annan also has been criticized for his inability to get the big powers to stop Arab Janjaweed killing of black Sudanese.
By far, the darkest mark on Annan’s tenure at the UN was his son, Kojo’s role in the oil for food affair. After the first Iraq war, the UN allowed Saddam Hussein to sell just enough oil to buy food for his people. The UN was in charge of coordinating this whole sordid affair. Apparently, there was some corruption involved in the management of that classic neo-colonial program. Annan’s son, Kojo, got some unbided contract hence allegation that Annan used his influence to secure a position for his son.
Several investigations have been carried out on the bungled UN oil for food program, including the one led by Paul Volker, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, U.S. None of these investigations implicated Annan for any wrongdoing. We shall take the exoneratory findings of these investigators as evidence that Annan was an honest international public servant.

Fourthly: How was Annan’s relation with the U.S.A.?

Consider the politics surrounding the second Iraq war. Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, came to the United Nations and gave the Security Council doctored documents to the effect that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He attempted to obtain the UN’s blessing for the U.S. to go to war in Iraq. Failing to do so, the U.S. reinterpreted an earlier UN Resolution to the effect that Saddam was in violation of the demand that he come clean with his entire weapons program hence justifying attack on him. Clearly, George Bush had his mind already made up to go to war with Iraq and was manipulating the UN to bless his war of choice. Kofi was opposed to that war but what could he do? Bite the finger that feeds him? If the U.S. stops funding the UN the organization goes belly up. So he bit his tongue and went along with Bush’s undisguised manoeuvres to hoodwink the world to going to where he wanted to go. It takes amazing coolness of character to not alienate the big boys, the five permanent members of the Security Council ( U.S.A., China, Russia, Britain and France) when one knows that what they, or some of them, are doing is not right. Annan had to be a very savvy diplomat to carry it out, to tolerate the shenanigans of the Bushy bullies, the arrogant Hegemon of the new world era.

Fifthly: Is Annan a politician the world could still count with?

The picture of Annan that emerged from reading this book is that he is an excellent bureaucrat and a peacemaker.
However, it appears that he lacked initiative and it is doubtful that he could be a political leader initiating political goals for his constituency to accomplish. Kofi performed the role assigned to him rather well: implemented policies made by the political actors at the Security Council. It would, however, seem a mistake to assign this perfect bureaucrat a political leadership role.

Thanks for this insight. As Max Weber would say, the well-adjusted bureaucrat lacks charisma, that indescribable quality needed in politicians, to initiate, mobilize and use men and material to accomplish political goals.
The one who will execute, the other one who will provide the task …
Dag, how did you see yourself, as the first one, or as the second one? … We shall come to know this at a later stage? … We are thrilled.

Kofi, please allow us to introduce to you your pre... pre... pre... predecessor, Mr. Dag Hammarskjöld; and here, we have Mr. John D. Rockefeller Jr. ... His father brought light to the world.

„OIL FOR FOOD ... ump, I mean ... FOR THE LAMPS OF CHINA?”

Ah, Kofi, you are aware of this story?

„An ingenious idea of your father …”

Now, Kofi, it’s not necessary anymore to be that diplomatically polite!
This Rockefeller here did grease business-relation with the Bush-family that would last until today — his first partner had been Prescott Bush, father and grandfather, respectively, of those two Bushes whom you came to know as Iraq-war farers.
Nevertheless, Kofi: forget your Bush-trauma, you are a pensioner! …
And, Mr. Rockefeller, please, calm down!
The Bush-connection will certainly pop-up again.