(6 of 9)
The end of the cold war brought murderous burdens that the U.N. has been unable to handle. U.N. troops are routinely asked to plunge into chaos--Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor. Annan isn't opposed to these missions. He has the courage to order the U.N. in wherever it is needed. But he has nightmares about trying to contain some of the world's most evil men with the resources of a local sheriff's department. He has tried that before: Rwanda, where 800,000 Tutsi were slaughtered by rival Hutu tribesmen; Srebrenica, Bosnia, where 8,000 Muslims were killed by Serbs. It wasn't only the U.N. that walked away from these tragedies. In both cases the Security Council--led, at times, by the U.S.--cowered. But the U.N.'s peacekeeping division, under Annan's leadership during these conflicts, bungled its attempts to implement the doctrine he would later preach. Annan now wants to ensure that his legacy isn't only a doctrine but also an institution that is capable enough--and courageous enough--to enforce it.
Last week the U.N. issued a report that reflects the heart of Annan's new vision for peacekeeping. The idea is that the U.N. would call on ready battalions from armies around the world to step into emerging hot spots. These "surge" troops would be trained to work together and deploy quickly. Tactical units from Sweden, say, would be trained to work side by side with Pakistani logistics officers. Lego blocks for international order--but Legos with teeth. While the U.N. would hold to the rules that permit peacekeepers to fire only in self-defense, the definition of self-defense would be stretched. If troops on the ground saw a left hook coming in, they would be free to do much more than duck.
Annan's goal is to formalize peacekeeping, to banish the deadly ad hocery that so often cripples good intentions. He envisions a time when countries will be eager to have their troops serve. His sales pitch is simple: U.N. operations are the best preview of the kinds of battles countries are likely to face in the future, conflicts that are less state vs. state and more state vs. maniac. "During the cold war, conflicts were neater," he explains. "You had client states [that] could be controlled. Here you are dealing with warlords who don't understand the outside world and don't care. Unless we are prepared to counter force with force, there is very little we can do. The problem is that you have countries like the U.S. that will not accept a single casualty. And that philosophy is spreading."
But how do you persuade Americans to grind up their children in a world that seems filled with endless hate? Annan believes it is all about leadership, about explaining how seeing a crime obligates us to prevent others if we can. He won't bash Clinton directly, but he suggests much of the killing that has gone on in the past decade could have been prevented by stronger U.S. leadership. "Bush had no problem in the Gulf--a vital national interest was at stake there--but he had no problem in Somalia either," Annan says. Courage, he believes, will always trump cowardice.
IV. EHUMBOBOR (COMPASSION)