spinbadz own

I disagree, in a minor sort of way, with only the second part of William Safire 's conclusion (about the UN oil-for-food scandal and Kofi Annan's son's kickbacks therein):

"Kofi Annan, even if personally innocent (ought to) resign ... having, through initial ineptitude and final obstructionism, brought dishonor on the Secretariat of the United Nations."

That Kofi Annan ought to resign - (1) sure; and (2) who cares.

No question that the Nobel-strength twerp deserves the old Buttkick + Begone in a told-you-so sort of way. The whole (oil-for-graft) affair, and indeed the UN itself, stinks to high heaven, which belies the second part of Safire's conclusion.

It seems rather disingenuous to talk about Annan's actions bringing "dishonor", unless the words "even further" are prefixed and "if that is possible" follows.

As Victor Davis Hanson put it some time ago (I've lost the link):

"... Kofi Annan, is himself a symbol of all that is wrong with the U.N. A multibillion dollar oil-for-food fraud, replete with kickbacks (perhaps involving a company that his own son worked for), grew unchecked on his watch, as a sordid array of Baathist killers, international hustlers and even terrorists milked the national petroleum treasure of Iraq while its own people went hungry. In response, Mr. Annan stonewalls, counting on exemption from the New York press (that non-liberal Safire currently writes for) on grounds of his unimpeachable liberal credentials."

In this article Hanson reminds us that Libya --infamous for its dirty war with Chad and cash bounties to mass murderers--chaired the 2003 session of the U.N.'s 53-member Commission on Human Rights, a body on which Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, have all served.

Then of course there's the fact that nearly half of the UN's resolutions in the past half-century have been aimed at punishing tiny democratic Israel at the behest of its larger,more populous--and dictatorial--Arab neighbors.

Under Annan this trend has become, if anything, even more widespread. A recent declaration of UN Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) - which include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), and exert a tremendous influence in the U.N. - held that:

"targeted victims of Israel's brand of apartheid and ethnic cleansing methods have been in particular children, women, and refugees"

and called for

"a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state ... the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation, and training) between all states and Israel."

while also condemning Israel's

"perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide."

Not exactly perspicacious stuff. All without any reference whatsoever to Palestinian suicide bombing, terror, videoed head-lopping, bomb-making factories, missile launches at civilian areas, rock throwing, calls for holy war, children's television programs inculcating hatred of Jews (did you hear about this? And there's lots, lots more) or racist vilification of Jews throughout the Arab media. Nor even to Israeli peace offers and massive concessions of territory, violent Palestinian rejectionism, extremist Islamic chauvinism or corruption-fueled Palestinian atrocities and violence.

Acutely juxtaposed to the endlessly streaming, colourful and wanton liberality with which the UN rebukes Israel is the recent news that the world body is edging closer, after 30 years of slavishly trying, to defining "terrorism", according to a fresh report from Reuterland.

Journalist Anton La Guardia assures us that by doing this the UN will, in the nick of time, rescue its "moral authority".

The problem seems to have been that "Palestinians, Iraqi insurgents, Kashmiri rebels, al-Qaeda militants and ... Muslim states" have "blocked agreement", apparently claiming that targeting and killing civilians is totally justifiable in the fight against "occupation" and "colonialism"(and the US and "Israel").

It's not a done deal yet but the brave UN may well, shortly, "send an unequivocal message that terrorism is never an acceptable tactic, even for the most defensible of causes".

Phew.

Meanwhile UN leader Annan himself has recently pompously purported to concern himself with the law and with legalities, famously telling a receptive (and no doubt delighted) BBC that, of the US invasion of Iraq:

"From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

It was also Annan who, at the behest of the NGO-led mob, referred "legal" questions about Israel's anti-murder lemming security barrier to the International Court of (political in-) Justice, a referral that led to a declaration (against Israel - need it be said?) nearly as unbalanced and bereft of reasoned fairness as the adjective-laden NGO Israel-bash quoted above.

Apart from his son Kojo who, one wonders, will shed tears if Annan himself pays the penalty for breaking the law, or for allowing others to, or for merely incompetently twirling administrative thumbs while laws were broken and the embers of UN credibility ground into fudge?


More on UN bias and incompetency here