Kofi Annan has made his final speech as UN secretary general, calling on the US not to lose sight of its core principles in its fight on terror.
“No nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over others,” Mr Annan said, urging the US to respect human rights in its “war on terror”.
Mr Annan said states had to be accountable and the UN was the only body where this could be assured.
The speech has been interpreted as a sharp rebuke of President Bush.
Our correspondent in Missouri, Jonathan Beale, said Mr Annan again raised objections to the Iraq war, a war he has already condemned as illegal.
“When power, especially military force, is used, the world at large will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it Is being used for the right purpose - for broadly shared aims,” he said.
Mr Annan, who has led the UN since 1997, will be succeeded by South Korea’s Ban Ki-moon on 1 January.
‘Priceless opportunity’
He delivered his speech at the library of late US President Harry Truman in the Missouri city of Independence.
In the address, he urged the US to embrace its natural and historical role as responsible global leader and warned that no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over others.
He praised the US for being historically “in the vanguard of the global human rights movement”.
But he also said that “that lead can only be maintained if America remains true to its principles - including in the struggle against terrorism”.
“When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused.”
Mr Annan also stressed that Washington’s current position in the world gives it “a priceless opportunity” to entrench the principles of democracy at a global level.
But he stressed that this was no clash between Western and Eastern civilisations.
“All civilisation is at stake, and we can save it only if all peoples join together in the task.”
‘Far-sighted leadership’
Mr Annan’s speech is also highly symbolic, our correspondent says, as the outgoing UN head has chosen the venue deliberately - the library of President Truman.
President Truman was an early champion of the UN - a contrast to Mr Bush, who has been one of its harshest critics, our correspondent says.
During the speech, Mr Annan repeatedly quoted the words and philosophy that informed Mr Truman’s politics.
He ended with an appeal for a shift in US policy, saying “In order to function effectively, the system still cries out for far-sighted leadership in the Truman tradition.”
“I hope and pray that American leaders of today and tomorrow will provide it.”
Born in Ghana in 1938, Mr Annan has led the UN since 1997 and, in 2001, he and the UN received the Nobel Peace Prize.
Well it was a resounding slap on the face of an arrogant and ignorant Bush. Those who don't learn anything from history are condemned to repeat it. Situation in Iraq is similar to Vietnam war.
Just look at the mess he and his cronies have created in Iraq. They went there searching for WMD but found absence of democracy instead !
Great think tanks or rather stink tanks discuss solving Iraq problem by dividing it into three countries.. Shias, Sunnies and Kurds.. and remain completely unmindful of implications such a shortsighted approach can have in other countries.
With power and prosperity comes responsibility and Bush has thrown this norm to winds.
Yes, well done by Kofi, the hero of Darfur. Oooops, scratch that. Kofi the hero of the oil-for-palaces program. Ooops, sorry. Oooops, Kofi who provided huge funding for AIDS and Malaria in Africa. Sorry, that was Bush. So what exactly did Kofi accomplish?
Well, non-proliferation has become a joke, Darfur is a genocide that has not received a decent effort. Middle East peace has not advanced. What exactly has Kofi done? The UN is a bloated corrupt innept shadow of what it used to be. Unless the US, NATO or the EU act independently, nothing happens. Kofi gridlock. Under Kofi the UN has not accomplished a thing, and is not a viable solution in the world.
Sure Kofi, let Bush have it. Give him hell. Can't wait to hear Boltons' repsonse.
Kofi was against the war and now he has said it very open.
But he has not done anything practically. I mean UN as an organization didn't do anything to save Iraq and Afghanistan from war. so these are just the words. But again sometimes words may make a difference too (they show the real picture).
UN Secretary General is always selected from weak countries. Why would powerful countries install a head UN head from their own countries. Aafat mole lene ka shauk nahin hai unko.
Kofi was against the war and now he has said it very open.
But he has not done anything practically. I mean UN as an organization didn't do anything to save Iraq and Afghanistan from war. so these are just the words. But again sometimes words may make a difference too (they show the real picture).
what possibly could UN have done to stop invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan?
His effectiveness and credibility, or lack thereof, dilute his moral weight. He is a symbol of corruption and ineffectivenss. A powerful and effective UN may have prevented a war, by bringing Saddam to justice, and imposing a process to allow more representation by Shias and Kurds. Despite a widely acknowledged Genocide by Saddam, the UN did nothing. This is a collossal failure that Kofi should be apologizing for on his way out the door, rather than presuming to take the moral high ground. Kofi's inaction is far more insidious and destructive in the long term than the US overzealous action. The UN is the only tool available to the world to guarantee justice and resolution of conflict. Kofi has advanced neither.
The Darfur tragedy shows that unless the US leads, nothing happens. When left to Kofi, people simply continue to die. He is utterly ineffective at the prime tasks that define the UN.
Its not him as an individual - its the way, UNO works. we can't really blame him because we all know that UNO's Secretary General is just like a dummy, a person whose hands are tied up.
I don't really know much about the previous selections but am sure its always like that.
Its easier to control a Sec. Gnrl selected from a third-world country and thats why he was appointed. Imagine, if they select someone from European Union or America etc.
Kofi annan has very little credibility - he did not do anything effective during his tenure, did very little to clear his name of the scandals involving his family and now has proven further what a gutless wonder he is by waiting till his farewell speech to criticise W. It proves he doesn't care about the UN itself since he is leaving and any retribution will fall upon UN rather than him. If otherwise, why did he wait this long?