| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| The Real Reason Kofi Annan Must Go |
| 2004-12-20 |
| EFL. For a great WSJ ink dot picture of the evil Kofi, click on the link. A debate currently rages about whether Kofi Annan enjoys the moral authority to lead the United Nations because the Oil for Food scandal happened under his command. That debate is 10 years too late and addresses the wrong subject. The salient indictment of Mr. Annan's leadership is lethal cowardice, not corruption; the evidence is genocide, not oil. As the controversy roiled over the past several weeks, I was on a research trip to the two ground-zeros of Mr. Annan's failed leadership while he was head of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations--Rwanda and Bosnia. We have heard from too many conservative commentators and Republican politicians recently--most of whom reject multilateralism anyway--about Mr. Annan's qualifications to lead. But we have not heard from enough Rwandans or Bosnians. I thought I'd talk to a few. snip "Do you think the U.N. was at fault?" I asked. Not the soldiers, she said, but the leaders. "If they had done their job, and were responsible, this would not have happened." I asked if she'd heard about the current controversy over Mr. Annan's leadership. Yes she had. So I asked if she thought he should resign. It was not oil that fueled her angry answer, but genocide: "Yes," she said, waving her hand, "all the U.N. leaders. They could have reacted if they wanted to. If the U.N. goes somewhere now, how can the people there believe or trust that the U.N. will save them?" Liberal multilateralists on the left, like me, are often skittish about offering too pungent a critique of Mr. Annan, because it offers aid and comfort to the "enemy" on the conservative unilateralist right. But if anyone's values have been betrayed at the U.N. over the past decade it is those of us who believe most deeply in the organization's ideals. Just ask the men and women of Rwanda and Srebrenica. Mr. Cain served in U.N. peacekeeping operations in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and Liberia. |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #23 Not mine, but it might make Kofi sing soprano again. Actually, a great place for Rummy, if he looses DoD would be as Danforth's replacement at the UN. That would be the best thing since Moynihan was in the job. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-20 3:31:09 PM |
| #22 Panties in a knot... Good one, LH. :) |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2004-12-20 3:30:15 PM |
| #21 I think Don Rumsfelf should become the new SG of the UN. If thats unrealistic, how about making him the new US ambassador to the UN. Wouldnt that get some peoples panties in a knot? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-12-20 3:12:42 PM |
| #20 The sickness of our times: The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt. Ayn Rand |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2004-12-20 12:50:03 PM |
| #19 Replacing Kofi is the right thing to do, but it won't make much difference. The UN is flawed by design. The problem is that its structure gives equal weight to democracies and thugocracies, and allows the latter to block any attempt to end genocide or to overthrow murderous kleptocrats if such actions in any way impinge on the economic or political interests of the non-democracies. For instance anytime genocide occurs within a 300-mile radius of significant oilfields, you can bet that China will block efforts to end the genocide. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-20 12:33:41 PM |
| #18 The Hutus were assisted by Phrance because the Tutsis were from a former Brit colony and the Phrench can NEVER lose a Phrancophone country, especially to English speakers. |
| Posted by: Brett_the_Quarkian 2004-12-20 12:30:33 PM |
| #17 DB..that's what Mike does - he smugly plays word games over the bodies of the raped, murdered and dead. Jules.. bravo! well said!! |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-20 12:30:29 PM |
| #16 ...whereas others...dang |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2004-12-20 12:28:10 PM |
| #15 If there were no UN the U. S. would have to take responsibility for allowing genocides to happen without the luxury of being able to palm the responsibility off on the UN. WITH the UN the same can be said, at least in terms of whom the world holds responsible for these crimes. (See Mike's comment.) I'd like to know what day it was that the US took on the burden for the whole world to save it from itself? Why do we have an absolute burden/obligation to help whereas only have to talk and then castigate the US for not lifting more, sacrificing more? That is where Americans are balking-if the world wants help, we provide blood, sweat and money, while they pontificate on what we haven't done. ...if we did withdraw from the UN, we'd still have to face the responsibility of doing something when confronted with genocide. No more than any other country who has the ability and does nothing. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2004-12-20 12:25:57 PM |
| #14 Uh, Mike, the question was, "Do you blame the leadership of the UN?", not "Do you blame the membership of the UN?" Don't play those bullshit word games with this one. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2004-12-20 12:24:53 PM |
| #13 but..but...how would Mikey deflect? Would he point to the dead children? Would he point to the mass graves? Would he point to the rape rooms? Pray tell me? If we didn't have a UN, how could we all so successfully avert our gaze from such horrors? |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-20 12:17:38 PM |
| #12 My take is over on the Kooksville article in #1. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-20 12:16:12 PM |
| #11 But even if we did withdraw from the UN, we'd still have to face the responsibility of doing something when confronted with genocide. That is exactly the point. Now everybody can say "Intervening in the affairs of another nation to prevent genocide is a UN decision, not a national one." If there were no UN the U. S. would have to take responsibility for allowing genocides to happen without the luxury of being able to palm the responsibility off on the UN. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-20 12:09:19 PM |
| #10 Call me selfish, but I fail to see the confronting of any genocide more important than the ones being planned by Iran and North Korea. And the useless U.N. is getting nowhere with those either. Mikey, would you like to leave that nuclear bomb/missile genocide issue to the U.N. too? The truth is that it's the U.S. that goes in and cleans up the messes in this world, either under the U.N. banner or independently. I don't see Mikey pushing for the Chinese or Indians to go rushing in to clean up these genocides. Why not? They certainly outnumber us. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-12-20 11:50:26 AM |
| #9 Trimble: General Ewell, I said to him, "Sir, give me one division and I will take that hill." And he said nothing at all, he stood there, he stared at me. I said, "General Ewell, give me one brigade, and I will take that hill." And General Ewell put his arms behind him and blinked. So I said, "General, give me one regiment, and I will take that hill!" And he said nothing! He just stood there! I threw down my sword in front of him! We could have done it, sir. A blind man should have seen it. But Mike is still scum in my book. Too busy deflecting from the stoning of 9 year old prostitutes to be of any worth in my book. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-20 11:43:51 AM |
| #8 There's a certain point here: we COULD have prevented Rwanda. One brigade of airborne infantry -- hell, a couple of battalions -- could have stopped the murders dead in their tracks. American airborne, of course. One of Bill Clinton's best moves, and I mean this seriously, was recognizing that 1) Bosnia was a slow-motion genocide and 2) the Euros would never stop it. So he did. He came late, and he did too much hand-wringing, but he stopped it. Good, that's one for him. So when Mike asks what these folks might think of us or the Euros and the blame to be apportioned, let's remember that we could have stopped certain genocides and didn't. Hell, the whole reason most all of us are ready to put American troops (or special forces at least) into Darfur is because we Rantburgers see another genocide occurring, and we want it stopped. Now. Today. Jules notes that the Hutus swung the machetes. Yep, they did. One brigade of airborne infantry and the machetes would 1) have been put down carefully or 2) fallen out of their hands after we blew their heads off. Make a choice, Mr. Hutu-man, 'cause my boys are dialed in on your forehead. The Canadian officer in charge of the UN mission in Rwanda wanted to fight, and was prevented from doing so. The Dutch troops at Srebenica wanted to fight, but their government wouldn't let them. They knew. We know. Mike has a point. Maybe withdrawing from the UN is right. I don't know, but I see the Security Council and General Assembly as being rather useless precisely because they won't take a stand in favor of the things that need to be done. The UN has become a trade association for thugs and dictators, and trade associations never go after their own. But even if we did withdraw from the UN, we'd still have to face the responsibility of doing something when confronted with genocide. And if we don't, those people asking questions, as Mike notes, will be right to accuse us. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-12-20 11:35:24 AM |
| #7 Belleview? Hmm...did anyone check's Mikey's ISP to see if he's located in a French psyc ward?? Nahh..he seems more of just a cheer-leader to terror, rape, murder and genocide than an actual perpetuator himself. Too chicken to do the deeds, but gets off on condoning them. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-20 11:14:34 AM |
| #6 Americans and Europeans at fault--for what, Mike? Making other people carry out genocides? Are you on medication? So, all the those Hutus were possessed by American and European demons and their hands forced to do what they didn't want to do? And all those Serbs killing Bosnians-same thing? It was America and Europe who made them kill all those innocents, right? The neurosis has fully implanted itself in your head-if something goes wrong in the world-America is to blame. Someone call Belleview. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2004-12-20 11:07:04 AM |
| #5 Thanks, Mike. You never disappoint, you pathetic excuse for a human being, you. Tell me, Mike, I'm curious. What exactly is it that you get for your defending or deflecting from the most evil among us? 30 Shekels? A sense of importance? |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-20 10:56:14 AM |
| #4 nice riposte Kofi-boy |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-20 10:37:34 AM |
| #3 Were these people asked whether they also thought the USA, the Europeans or anyone else was at fault too? Were these people asked whether they thought the solution of the problem was that the USA should withdraw from the UN? Did they think that their situation would have turned out better if that had been done? . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-12-20 10:35:20 AM |
| #2 quick Mikey, give us some fact to deflect from this genocide. Can you do it for us, Mikey? We count on you. Don't let us down. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-20 10:20:29 AM |
| #1 So who is going to take over the UN and make things all moral and right? It will not be a US leader. The only one acceptable to the thugocracies and kleptocracies would be Bill Clinton. Any other leader from another country that would lead with moral authority would never be allowed in. The UN is dead, only it just doesn't know it yet. You don't breathe life into the dead except in Frankenstein movies, and we all know what happens there. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-12-20 10:14:47 AM |