05/23/2004: "Kofi Annan, moral philosopher"

The Trinity Institute in New York recently held a conference entitled "Naming Evil." Unfortunately, their keynote speaker wasn't even sure he belonged there:

[S]o loaded is the word that in his May 2 keynote address Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, admitted that he was not even sure that the word "evil" is a part of his normal vocabulary.

"There is something about the word when we apply it to another human being, and more especially to a group of human beings, that makes me uncomfortable," Annan said. "It's too absolute. It seems to cut off any possibility of redemption, of dialogue, or even co-existence. It is the moral equivalent of declaring war.

"When we think of other people as evil, we are perilously close to denying them any rights and releasing ourselves from any obligations toward them. We are poised at the top of a slippery slope that leads to violence, murder, even genocide."

Annan said that if people of good will are intent on "naming evil...then let us name it intolerance. Let us name it as exclusion. Let us name it as a false assumption that we have nothing to learn from beliefs and traditions different from our own. That, I believe, is the true evil of our time."

By using the word "evil" of murderers and those who commit genocide, we start down a road that leads to murder and genocide, which aren't actually evil, because only intolerance and exclusion are evil.

You read stuff like this, and you wonder how Kofi Annan managed to graduate from high school, much less become head of the UN.

On second thought...

(PS�It's not that there hasn't been any interesting news, but I've been out of town and without Internet access for four days. It's good to be home.)

Replies: 6 Comments

on Monday, May 24th, Little Fly said

Yes, on second thought�

First, the article quoted here never suggests that Annan wasn�t sure he belonged at the conference, only that he is uncomfortable using the term �evil� himself, if it understood to objectify people and cut them off from the possibility of redemption/reconciliation. Second, Annan is never quoted here as denying that actions can be evil, even if he is wary of applying the term to human beings, which the above interpretation suggests. Third, Annan never suggests that his concern with the term �evil� requires that he be neutral toward the behavior of others. Specifically, the article says: �Annan issued a cautionary note against moralism, saying that he cannot fully share the "moral certainty of the pacifist," noting that there are times "when the use of force is legitimate and necessary because it is the lesser of two evils." "But," he warned, "the lesser of two evils is still an evil, and we should not forget that."� Wow, Annan almost sounds like a Christian here, warning us against both the inclination to objectify people if we feel that we must name then evil, and against the inclination to be either pacifist or disproportionate with force when we know someone�s behavior must be stopped.

Here is what I understand Annan to be saying:

1. If the term �evil� is used in an �absolute� manner that excludes the possibility of redemption, dialogue, or co-existence, then Annan is uncomfortable using it.

2. If the term �evil� is used in a manner that denies individuals their rights or releases us from any obligation toward them (that is, if it contributes to our dehumanization of people whose behavior we find deplorable), then Annan feels that use of the term is more likely to contribute to unjustified or disproportionate retaliation.

3. Annan suggests that �intolerance� and �exclusion� are good candidates for being named evil because a) they lie at the heart of much deplorable activity, and b) they lie at the heart of the objectification Annan warns us against in his first two points. In other words, Annan warns against �intolerance� and �exclusion� specifically because he understands them to contribute to unjust and disproportionate acts by both the �evil-doers� and the �evil-stoppers.�

4. Annan suggests that while force will be necessary to stop people from doing deplorable things, we should not lose sight of their humanity, and we should not implicate ourselves in evil by stopping their evil.

Yes, I see quite clearly how Annan graduated from high school. I also don�t see how a Christian could disagree with these four points I have derived from the quotations provided in the article. Also, I see no evidence that the above interpretation is accurate to the quotations provided.

I know people don�t particularly like everything Annan says or does. I know I don�t. But I don�t see the value in making him say things he hasn�t. Frankly, I am rather impressed with Annan�s warning to Christians that they use their moral vocabulary with the greatest of care and charity. We should always be diligent about this, and we should always be open to a reminder. Annan isn�t asking us to do anything we don�t already know we should be doing.

on Monday, May 24th, Greg S said

I really enjoy reading your perspective on this website, LF. Please don't fly away no matter how large a swatter someone might bring into the room.

Your perspective (spin?) on Annan's speech doesn't contain any actual mistakes that I can find. If I read an article/commentary as you have written, without knowing it was him, I probably would not see it as objectionable.

However, we must look at the context of the UN, it's Security Council, and Annan's leadership there. When the UN talks about "disproportionate response," and "moral superiority," it's talking about Israel's effots in fighting terrorism. In that regard, the UN's track record is dismal.

on Monday, May 24th, Little Fly said

And I acknowledge that the UN has problems, just as the current administration does. This does represent my spin, but I think it is consistent with much of what the UN and its leaders say, even if we disagree with the UN's engagement in the Middle East and elsewhere. The UN is not the only organization that speaks and acts contrary to American foreign policy. Another would be the Catholic Church. The latter has the adavntage of being Christian and not wielding direct military or diplomatic power, so they tend to get a pass.

I admit that what I think the UN needs is constructive criticism and support from Christians and Americans, largely because I feel that we share similar ends. However, I don't see any harm in acknowledging that what Annan says as the voice of the UN is entirely consistent with my own Christian calling to seek peace in the world. Do I have issues with methods or with particular engagements? Yes. But this is no different from my having issues with the Bush Administration's handling of the "war on terror." Could the UN be more effective? Yes. But I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I don't want to get too engaged in the terrorism question in Israel right now because all it does is start people fighting. However, I'd like to consider a hypothetical: If the Palestinians were to set down their weapons tomorrow and instead engaged in nonviolent resistance (massive sit-ins, blocking traffic, whatever) what concessions do you think Israel would be prepared to give. I don't ask because I think this will ever happen. I fear this conflict will continue as long as Israel exists. I just wonder what Israel would do in response.

on Monday, May 24th, Greg S said

That's a good question. As you say, it's unlikely (impossible) that the Palestinians will lay down their weapons. Clinton practically begged them to do so back in 2000, to no avail.

As for the UN, I say let's throw the baby out completely. It's a extr-governmental agency that does a lousy job at half of it's self proscribed duties. Any other institution with such a track record would be disolved, but the UN is self-perpetuating.

The concept of a UN in principle is essential in today's world. I just think we should start over again. The organization was designed for a post-WW2 world, and while it's done a fine job embracing the influx of new and recreated states during the 80s and 90s, it needs a larger reshuffling.

The biggest problem? France as a permanent Security Council Member, rather than India!

on Monday, May 24th, Little Fly said

Agreed that the concept is vital but the model is outdated. Hopefully the new version would not have a Security Council at all.

on Saturday, May 29th, Chuck said

One other view that I think you may have missed about Annan is that evil people do not like the term evil. The "OIL FOR FOOD" program in Iraq before the war should have been called the "OIL FOR ANNAN AND SONS" program since they were all on the take while Iraqi people were starving. Does this sound like evil?? It does to me. We hear from the left that we should feed the hungry, take care of the poor and not let the rich get richer off the backs of the poor, and yet the oil for food program did nothing but make the rich richer and starve the masses under Sadaam. You can include the French, Russians and Germans in the list of those who participated in this scam. ?? I wonder why they opposed us on the war???

Another interesting point is that the Oil for Food Scam investigation will not be completed for another 18 months. It sure takes the French, Germans, Russians and Annans a long time to investigate themselves!!! Don't expect much of a report.