Kooky Uncle Kofi: A Farewell Op-Ed

Hold that champagne until AFTER New Year's Eve because UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is gone in January of 2007. on December 31st. (So pop it whenever you would like on the 31st.) THEN we can celebrate his departure. This man was most definitely not the sort of leader the United Nations needed heading into the 21st Century. He is corrupt, inept, and incompetant. And today, as pointed out by Captain Ed, he has an an op-ed in the WaPo where he explains what he has learned. Obviously, he learned nothing because the United Nations is in worse shape now than before he took over. A few key paragraphs:

First, in today's world we are all responsible for each other's security. Against such threats as nuclear proliferation, climate change, global pandemics or terrorists operating from safe havens in failed states, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. Only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves. This responsibility includes our shared responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. That was accepted by all nations at last year's U.N. summit. But when we look at the murder, rape and starvation still being inflicted on the people of Darfur, we realize that such doctrines remain pure rhetoric unless those with the power to intervene effectively -- by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle -- are prepared to take the lead. It also includes a responsibility to future generations to preserve resources that belong to them as well as to us. Every day that we do nothing, or too little, to prevent climate change imposes higher costs on our children.

It is so nice to see him noting the genocides that went on around the world on his watch as Secretary General; many of them that were refused to be noticed by Kofi and Company. I am sure that the people of Rwanda would applaud him for the note, if any of them were still alive. The same goes for Darfur, which it was not until most recently that it was recognized by the United Nations that ethnic cleansing and genocide were being perpetrated there after years of forcing the population to tolerate the brutal acts of the Sudanese regime. As for his muttering about climate problems, we have much graver issues to deal with than Al Gore's pet project.

Second, we are also responsible for each other's welfare. Without a measure of solidarity, no society can be truly stable. It is not realistic to think that some people can go on deriving great benefits from globalization while billions of others are left in, or thrown into, abject poverty. We have to give all our fellow human beings at least a chance to share in our prosperity.

Many of these impoverished nations around the world are run by thugs and dictators, and that is why they remain that way. We need look no further than North Korea's admission of that today. (And another Hat-Tip for Captain Ed on that story.) Nations like North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, etc., live in squalor, and it is due mostly to the regimes that run those nations. It is not that they are not on the global map for have international business and relations, but rather that their own behavior is admonished by so many in the world. Why should any prosperous nation deal with another that blatantly abuses its people, and continually refuses to bring themselves up to par with the rest of the world?

Third, both security and prosperity depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law. Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learned from each other. But if our communities are to live in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity and the need for our human dignity and rights to be protected by law.

And what happens when dictators flout those laws, and the United Nations refuses to hold them accountable? Pinochet, from Chile, just died recently. He avoided prosecution for human rights abuses because of his frail state and his age when he was finally removed from office. Actions like that embolden people like Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashir Assad, and Saddam Hussein. They know that if they can either die in "office," or are too sick to face the music under a tribunal, that international law does not faze them. They do not care. But the bureaucracy within the United Nations has made it nearly impossible to nail these people. And that, added to the flip-flop attitude from the United Nations, makes these thugs thumb their noses at the world. The United Nations did nothing to hold Saddam accountable; that took the United States' intervnetion. They have done nothing to Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. And even though they are investigating the death of Rafik Hariri, it is not likely that Assad will see prosecution ofr his role in that assassination.

My fourth lesson, therefore, is that governments must be accountable for their actions, in the international as well as the domestic arena. Every state owes some account to other states on which its actions have a decisive impact. As things stand, poor and weak states are easily held to account, because they need foreign aid. But large and powerful states, whose actions have the greatest impact on others, can be constrained only by their own people.

Accountability? Who is he kidding? The Oil-for-Fod scandal will be Kofi Annan's legacy to the world. He, members of his family, and numerous cronies withint he United Nations--and outside of it, for that matter--reaped the benefits of skimming money off of the top. They, themselves, helped perpetuate the suffering of the Iraqi people, and it was all done in the name of greed. I do not think we need to be lectured by this obtuse fool about accountability. He has no clue as to what the phrase means, or what truly being accountable for one's actions really mean.

No less important, all the Security Council's members must accept the responsibility that comes with their privilege. The council is not a stage for acting out national interests. It is the management committee of our fledgling global security system.

And yet, when we ventured to the UNSC for the resolution ot hold Iraq accountable, it was the other members on the security council who balked. And it was not because they did not believe us, but rather their own national interests trumped the need for accountability. We are seeing it played out again when it comes to Iran. The West wants stern, unyielding sanctions against Iran for the furtherance of their nuclear program. And who is whining about it on the UNSC? Why, that would be Russia and China right now, and it is due to the fact that they have business dealings with Ahmadinejad, and the mullahocracy there. The UNSC has literally become the stage where national interests are played out everyday.

If this was Kofi Annan's idea of admonishing the United States, he does a poor job. If anything, we have stood for reforming the United Nations. We would rather not go through another, billion dollar scandal like Oil-For-Food, and the only way we can avoid that is to force reform on a corrupt organization. The United Nations is crooked, and it has been run by unscrupulous leaders for some time now.

Because of that, there is a resounding call from the people of the United States that itis time to leave it before it ends up taking us down when it falls. And fall it will, and likely in the same way that the League of Nations did in its futile efforts,a nd abject failures, to prevent World War II. If we ever have another war like that (and while I do recognize that the war on terror is a global operation, it is not a "world war" in the sense of the phrase), the United Nations will be gone, and hopefully we will be smart enough to not form another organization like that again.

Marcie