I think it is interesting, when considering Kofi Annan’s legacy, to factor into consideration the general global diplomatic climate when he took to the helm of the UN in 1997. By then, the world was beginning to get tired of the 80s development mantras of "structural adjustment programs", previously purported to be Africa's ticket out of poverty. The continent had witnessed a decade of negative per capita growth yet again. Much of the early-mid 90s had also seen a general neglect of the African continent by the rest of the world.

So perhaps Annan's appointment to the Secretariat in 1997 could be read with justification as a signal of the world’s willingness to finally pay serious attention to African issues and help resolve them. To his credit, in some cases Annan rose to the occasion, for example, as demonstrated by the UN led shift away from "structural reform" and "Grand Solution" development programs to the MDG-centric approach which, in-spite of its merits being under debate, was a definite improvement over its predecessors.

As Kofi Annan departs, not only does the world have yet another set of global development mantras (read: democratization), perhaps even more worrisome, it seems at the end of his stint, the world has never been more depressed and pessimistic about Africa’s prospects. The focus is shifting to Asia, where geo-strategic interests in the Middle East and massive markets in the Far East, with super-power potential, are getting to be of more interest and importance.

So, should we see the Annan to Ban Ki-moon transition as symbolic of the global shift in interest towards the Asia and away from Africa? Is it an indication of the triumph of Afro-pessimism and by extension, when accounts balance, an indication of Annan’s failing -- by omission -- of Africa? I do not mean to suggest that the best scenario would have been having another African as UN secretary general, which would probably have been impossible anyway. I do, however, mean to point out that the bare minimum that Africa would expect from having an African as the secretary-general is that for as longs as Africa lags behind, it remains at the top of the global agenda. The cost of Kofi Annan’s failure, and to me it seems like he has failed for the most part, in this regard alone outweighs any gains from all of his other successes.

It is appropriate for those who say that Annan didn't achieve to reform the UN, but again people should understand that Annan had plans but alone he couldn't go far. Today the UN mellenium goals are to be tackled by all members of the organization. Leaving the Secretary General this responsibility alone will be as good as directing a choir and become at the same time the sole choir member.

Annan did a great job but like everyone, he cared too much of keeping his position rather than addressing matters as they were in fear not to be seen a bad guy by superpowers who engineer the organization.