|
|||||
Exiting gracefullySo, having stood primly by while some 800,000 Tutsis were butchered in Rwanda back in 1994, and – having sworn “never again” – giving the Sudanese government one of his best lip-pursings ever after another 200,000 – 400,000 Africans were and are being slaughtered in Darfur, what is chief among Kofi Annan’s regrets as he comes to the end of his UN presidency? The fact that he didn’t do more to stop the US from deposing Saddam Hussein:
We liberate 25 million minds. We spend the next three years and nearly 3000 lives trying to help those who suffered under 30 years of one kind of brutal dictatorship from being imposed upon by a minority seeking to impose a second kind of tyranny, and Kofi wishes he could have done more to prevent it. I expect that the UN healing he’s searching for comes after the US retreats in humiliation, allowing the butchery to really get going gangbusters. Sure a lot of folks are going to have to die, but if you’re going to make an omlet, you’ve got to break a few eggs, right? And think of how good it’ll be for UN prestige for the hand-wringing legions of international inaction to have been proven right. Retroactively, I mean. Given a little help. Might even take some of the heat off all those blue-helmeted child predators he’d rather not talk about. Not to mention the whole oil-for-food-for-limos-for-bureaucrat-children scandal. They say people are known by the quality of their regrets. We know you now, Kofi. Off you go. Don’t let the screen door hit you. 37 comments to Exiting gracefully |
  |
||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
What a morally-repugnant SOB!
(excuse the language, please)
Fbl, no, I won’t excuse the language, I believe his behavior has earned himself the label. He worked hard hard to get it, let him have it. Yes, pun intended.
Lex, your last line, “Don’t let the screen door hit you.” My preference would be to let it hit him. Make sure that door is the same size as the big one at Cheyenne Mountain. I think you get my drift.
“Grumpy”
Actually, I kinda like what my mother said about him when I pointed her to this post: “He’s a crook.”
While the departure of this clueless kleptocrat is a plus, the entire organization of the United Nations has decayed into meaningless grandstanding. With no recognizable achievements in at least 3 decades its continued existence is irrelevant except to obstruct and obfuscate on behalf of dictators and tyrants.
The departure of John Bolton should coincide with our ceasing to waste time and treasure on their silly games. Lock up the U.S. office there. Quit sending them checks. Don’t bother asking their permission or support for anything. We neet to get on with diplomacy or other actions to protect the best interests of the United States.
To Kofi: Go away mad, or not – just go away.
Oh by all means, LET the damn door hit him – let it smack his ass until it’s as red as the blood spilled in Rwanda and Darfur. He can take his sadness, regret and healing and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
He admitted that the failure to prevent the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a major blow to the UN,
You aren’t reading this correctly. You have to interpolate:
He admitted that the failure to prevent the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a major budgetary blow to the UN,
Kofi is lamenting the loss of income from the oil-for-food cash cow.
“Sure a lot of folks are going to have to die, but if you?
Give them a 6 month notice of our departure from this organization, along with a 6 month notice to vacate the building. Let Donald do something worthwhile with the property.
That’s a fair point Michelle, and worth discussing. Saddam’s 8-year war with Iran killed million people, around 400k more were “disappeared” during the salad days of his regime, and at least another 180k were butchered during the Anfal genocide in the Kurdish north. Viewed from that perspective, it was hard to see in 2001 how we could do any worse, especially with fears of collapsing sanctions, the industrial-scale perfidy of his foreign enablers and those WMD programs casting their long shadows over a post-9/11 populace.
Iraq is a land with a 4000 year history, and it’s tempting for war critics here at home to proclaim that history over, the issue decided against American interest, but many of them do so from ideological bias rather than cold reasoning.
We acted out of the need to protect ourselves from the worst possible forms of destruction in a world where it suddenly was made clear to us that the willingness of enemies to murder our innocents was limited only by the potency of the weapons they could fashion to the use. And having satisfied that part of the mission, we stayed behind to trya and ensure that a brutalized populace had the chance to fashion a better life for themselves.
I think many of us are still surprised how many of them would rather murder each other than live together.
And history doesn’t stand still when alternative choices are pursued. If Saddam had been left in place and the UN sanctions regime had in fact collapsed – as it showed every sign of doing – we would be facing a two-front nuclear arms race in the middle east between Iraq and Iran. One is fully challenging enough.
We acted for the best, and yes it’s true that the worst might yet come despite our good intentions. But all too often the UN fails to act for reasons that cannot be morally comprehended.
Lex, if you had a crystal ball back then and could see what would transpire to date, would you have recommended the invasion? And if so, with what, if any, qualms?
Ah, well: The demand for crystal balls is at its peak, but the supply, as ever, is vanishingly small. We always say to ourselves, “If only I knew then what I know now,” but we only ever know now what we know when we know it. In that now I knew we were undertaking a great and noble feat, securing ourselves while providing an enslaved race the chance for freedom.
In this now I know that regardless of all that has happened in the intervening period, that failure isn’t a very palatable option.
There are no good choices between “bad” and “worse.” But there are easy ones.
Sorry, you lost me there at the very end. The very last sentence – the easy choice is …. ??
“There are no good choices between ?
Oh, I suppose I was trying to make the point about choosing between the lesser of two evils, between bad choices and worse ones.
The hard part is that if we pulled out prematurely, we would in fact be saving the lives of soldiers and Marines, at least in the short term. The Iraqi people, or at least, any of them who at least dared to hope that we meant what we said would be thrown to the wolves of course, and if you think it’s bad there now, wait until we take the lid off.
Some folks are betting that once they’ve done killing each other they’ll be satiated. Based on what evidence, I can’t imagine.
Yeah, well one thing that is pretty clear to me is that pulling out now ain’t the answer. Whether the original decision was “right” or not, what is is and it certainly looks like it would only make things worse for the US to leave now. Too bad only hindsight is 100%.
About the UN, I use to have a lot of respect for it but I seem to be fighting a losing battle within myself in that regard. It does seem to me as a general principle though that there ought to be some sort of international mulilateral body through which nations should act. But perhaps the UN needs to be scrapped and something new should be formed.
I do have one question though – I have some American friends who feel the same way as those who commented on this thread and I wonder, do Americans who seem to so strongly despise the UN feel this way solely based on those instances where the UN has appeared to screw up so badly or is at least part of it because they don’t want any mulilateral body dictating their country’s actions? Am also thinking along the lines of the World Court here.
Michelle,
I would have to say (for me at least), that it is a combination of both. The track record of the UN in the last 15 years in particulary has been abysmal. I like the idea of the UN, although I still have some sovereignty issues, but their totally ineffective and in some cases, criminal behavior has forced me to the point where I think it’s time has passed.
I don’t think this planet is ready for a world government and I’m not sure it ever will be.
“I think many of us are still surprised how many of them would rather murder each other than live together.”
Amen Skipper, but such is the Human condition, as you know, in most of the third world
unkawill, it ain’t just the third world. Humans *are* the most dangerous monkeys on the planet.
We’ll kill anybody for any reason or no reason.
M’self, I think a taste for bad music, or golf, should entitle one to be among the earliest of the snuffed. Sorry about that, golfers, you really are fiddling while Rome (America) burns.
unkawill said “Amen Skipper, but such is the Human condition, as you know, in most of the third world”
Actually, to echo JTG, it’s not at all just the 3rd world–which BTW, we now call the developing world–it’s people. WWII wasn’t started in the 3rd world, and whatever else we Americans do well, we sure do make some fine-a$$ military hardware. In fact, I’d say the U.S. has far exceeded Germany in making the coolest weapons of war and the most lethal and the most, period. We have more “old stuff” sitting in the boneyard at DM than some air forces have, and I’d bet a dime to a dollar that our boneyard stuff is still good enough to take on almost every European airforce.
So what’s my point? Well, we may rather live together than fight, but we don’t have a problem killing people who need killing either–and not only in war, but also on the streets. It’s only our softer side that keeps us from killing a lot more people I suspect.
Not a positive thought, but true enough as far as it goes.
V/R
Michelle – I agree with Yak. The U.N. record is spotty – and that’s being kind. Their sanctions only hurt the very people they are trying to help/protect, they are corrupt to the core and prefer finger pointing to actual action. As for a world government, like Yak said, I don’t believe we’ll ever be ready for that.
Besides, it sounds a little “biblical” to me; Revelation and the “First Seal” signifying the coming of the antichrist and a unified world government.
Wow, wasn’t sure I was talking about an actual world government…. I think I would leave that one in God’s hands. So are there no other options, is it each nation does whatever it considers in its best interests at any particular point in time (and from the point of view of the rest of the world, damm the consequences!) or some form of world government, perhaps brought from on high?
I mean, corrupt or not, you don’t see the UN as a “world government”, do you? I am coming to believe that yes, the UN must go, but I would replace it. Not exactly sure what with but wasn’t exactly thnking in world governance terms.
Its funny, I see this happening over and over when such discussions occur between non-Americans and Americans, its almost like a not- quuite-spoken need for people who aren’t American to know that there is some form of ….. control or restraint mechanism (can’t find exactly the word I want) out there to at least slow things down, encourage dialogue (no, I an not talking about negotiating with the Taliban!) between countries ….well, I guess its called multilateralism.
Okay, I go to look up the term mulilateralism to make sure that it means what I want it to and this is what I find:
“The main proponents of multilateralism have traditionally been the middle powers such as Canada and the Nordic countries. Larger states often act unilaterally, while the smaller ones may have little direct power at all in international affairs aside from participation in the United Nations (by consolidating their U.N. vote in a voting bloc with other nations, for example).”
Yeah, well there you go. I think that is why in large part Americans and much of the ROW (rest of the world) see such things differently. We may see and acknowledge problems with the UN, just as you do, but that is where we part ways -many Americans (speaking in generalities here) appear to see no need for any sort of outside organziation “telling them what they can and can’t do”; those of us with “little direct power at all in international affairs” see things rathher differently.
Which comes full circle to my original question, how much of this is about UN corruption and stupidity and how much is really about unilateralism?
Web Reconnaissance for 12/05/2006…
A short recon of what?
That’s another interesting point you make, Michelle. From our perspective the way things stand right now, we contribute 22% of the general UN operating budget annually (this was some $341 million in 2003) which is based on GDP, making the US the largest single contributor. But apart from the annual budget, we kicked in funds for peacekeeping and war crimes trials, etc. that brought our contribution up to $3billion.
And as you point out, the main thrust of this organization in a uni-polar world is seen as restraining our freedom to operate. It’s obvious why that might be attractive to industrial/political competitors such as France and/or Russia. What’s less obvious is why it’s in the interest of the US to provide the resources required to maintain our shackles. Maybe it’s Stockholm Syndrome.
I’m only being part-way facetious here: Of course it’s important to have a dialogue of nations, and it would be irresponsible for any power to act abroad as though its actions are of its own interest alone. The UN can provide a great sounding board, but in effect is rather an inefficient way of actually solving problems. Only look at the international response to the Boxing Day tsunami in Indonesia.
The main concern that I have is that, at least in the General Assembly where the Kofi Annan coffee clatch has greatest sway, is that the way the current organization is structured, police states such as Cuba and North Korea have equal moral status with established democracies such as Canada and Australia, just to name two. In a perfect world, I think there ought to be entry standards for admission to a serious world body, and that support for the rule of law tending towards democratic government be among them. This would be more practical now than ever before: According to Freedom House, in 1975 only 39 states could properly be called democratic, while by 2001 nearly 121 were characterized as such.
Knowing this will never happen, I reserve the right to criticise those who take it upon themselves to criticise us. Especially when it comes to motes and beams.
8 simple words…
U.S. Out of U.N,
U.N. Out of U.S.
OK… it’s actually 12… but you get my point.
Lee
Yep, I get your point. Just not the reasoning behind it.
Reasons to quit… the UN:
1) Bosnia
2) Rawanda
3) Sudan
4) Cambodia
Just to name a few. Everytime we try to do the right thing, one of the security council permanent members trumps us. So, why keep it? It’s ineffective, and in need of a serious overhaul. I’m just not sure that it’s worth fixin’…
Michelle,
You raise some excellent questions. Indeed, many people throughout the world are uncomfortable with what they perceive as unreasonable, obstinate American unilateralism–the nerve of those damn Yanks/Gringos/Infidels to act by and for themselves without so much as a ‘by your leave’ to the international Quality. We seem at times to delight in offending other nation’s elite sensibilities. It isn’t always deliberate, but there are reasons.
As Thomas Jefferson said, ‘a Decent Respect for the Opinions of Mankind’ makes it necessary to explain this infuriating behavior trait. I think the difference in one word is Sovereignty. We see sovereignty different than most other countries.
We’re a Republic, rough and ready. We don’t do Noblesse Oblige. We don’t do Divine Right of Kings. We roll our eyes at titles. Lectures on remedial World Citizenship just make us yawn.
We don’t bow to nobility of any kind. Whether they are the old titled heads of Europe, or their self-appointed tranzi successors —academics, the media, the EUnuchs of Brussels and Turtle Bay. We are indifferent to their endless carping, its just so much noise. That’s why hereditary elites hate America with a visceral passion— we’re just not into them. They can lecture, sneer, pout, whine, Whatever. They declare they have de jure sovereignty. “International Law!”, they thunder. Well, good luck with that…
230 years ago we figured out that all ya’ll’s Emperors iz bare butt nekkid. It’s de facto sovereignty that counts, and the common person here knows it.
Yeah, we could be smoother around the edges. We could use more etiquette and civility, definetely need a dress code.
But P.J. O’Rourke says Americans think of the State as a household appliance. And he’s right.
We don’t curtsy to washing machines.
And we pay our tributes in iron.
Thanks Lex and CPT J for the thoughful answers. Guess this is one of those places where perspective really is everything. Although I must say that I think the idea of entry standards for a world body does have some possibilities, in theory at least. But as you say, in the real world….
Oh yeah, just for the record, I reserve the right to continue this discussion over a few drinks with either or both of you should we ever actually meet.
Believe it or not, I actually hesitate as to how or even whether to respond here sometimes because I don’t want to come across as anti-American – “Hey, some of my best friends are American, honest!” she protests. Well, actually, that’s true….
Anyway I guess I will just have to get a little more comfortable with the idea that its okay to provide an alternate world view sometimes (even in a milblog, heh heh) -although I promise to leave the concept of one world gov’t in God’s capable hands; after all, we all need to know our limits, right?
And hey Lex, aren’t we about due for another good sea story?
Michelle,
Speaking for myself, I find your contributions to the discussion’s here most welcome.
” Guess this is one of those places where perspective really is everything.”
Personally, I like hearing your perspective, Be it Aussie, English,New Zelander or Canadian.
And that go’s for the rest of Ya’ll regular commenters too!
Michelle,
I completely agree with Unkawill, your perspective is invaluable. Please continue to speak your mind freely.
I always think of a stanza in the hymn “America the Beautiful”
‘Preserve thy Soul
In self-control
Thy Liberty in Law’
It’s a quiet admonishment to Americans to pay attention, and to know the difference between being loud and proud and brash and rash.
And the future drinks are on me, ma’am.
You keep coming back to the oppression in Iraq. Well that is true. However at the risk of being blunt, the world is a slaughter house these days. What was it about this particular slaughter house that made it worth invading?
There are plenty of others in the world. The United States does nothing about them. Darfur is good example, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, North Korea. We even trade and allow our debt to be held by a nation that oppresses it’s own citizenry, executes people by the score, and trades in human organs.
We have let stand two other places that are equally as tyrannical as Iraq ever was-Iran and North Korea.
We also count as allies nations that are democracies in name only-really they are one party oligarchies.
Kofi Annan is a product of the organization that morphed away from its roots. Part of that is because there are simply too many members. When the UN was founded it had 75 members. There were colonies and trusteeships for the other parts of the world. That was as it should be. Now there are 224 nations- that is ridiculous and it is what enables a guy like Annan to become the Secretary General. I would point out that the last really good Secretary General was Dag Hammeskold. A white European or an American stands a snowball’s chance in hell of being Secretary General. Which is sad, because they are the ones who are or were effective.
Moral supremacy is poor basis for national policy. National self interest is the only thing that matters. On that score Annan is right. Being in Iraq is hardly in the national self interest of the United States.
His successor is no better. If the UN wanted to improve-it needs to be smaller. And revisti ideas it has discarded-like mandates and trusteeships.
Hey Skippy-san, was wondering where you’ve been lately – good to see you back!
I’ve heard a lot of war critics complain about a lot of different things, Skip – but I think this is probably the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say that the US has no interests in Iraq, or by proxy, the middle east. Ever.
The new rallying cry: NO BLOOD FOR NOTHING!!!
That is not what I said.
The US has no interests in Iraq that are worth losing American lives over. Unless you want to me to say that the war is about oil, and if so, I would simply point out that dictatorships provide us with plenty of oil too.
The invasion was a detour of choice, that in the end is proving to be a great dag on our overall posture overseas. And the supposed war on terror.
Its good for the Iraqis, because that is all that stands between them and chaos. But what is good for Iraqis is not necessarily good for the US.
Or phrased another way, this is all effects based targeting. We obivously are not achieving our desired effect. Perhaps we chose the wrong means to start with…..or we underresourced it.
Dictatorships that provide us oil also provided us the 9/11 terrorists, which is what this is all about.
If we succeed at this, the world fundamentally re-orders along democratic lines tending towards personal freedom.
The opposite is also true.
Lex,
I suspect that is the fundamental difference. On this issue I’m a pessimist, you are an optimist. History tends to support my point of view.
The world of today is not fundamentally different than 100 years ago EXCEPT in terms of how fast the bad news travels and the technology by which the bad news is executed.
Also I cannot ( and I have tried) make the connection between upheaval in Iraq and the terrorists. Even if Iraq were stable, terrorists would simply grow elsewhere. In that regard what is going on Iraq is allowing terrorism to spread and metastize, its not in any way containing it.
The world may be re-ordering, but it is along familar lines. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Its simply the names and nationalities of the poor are changing.
Finally if there is to be such a democratic re-ordering, it has to start from within and even then its a dicey thing (e.g. look at Lebanon these days……). Nations evolve at their own pace and usually attempts to spead up the process of natural selection tend to fail. As Charles Darwin noted in the last century…………
I understand that you believe that to be true. I’d like to believe that it isn’t. Either way, if that part of the world is going continue exporting violence on an industrial scale to ours because of their perceived slights and nurtured grievances, we owe it to them to offer them an alternative to inevitable destruction.
If it’s a clash of civilizations they’re after, they will be destroyed whether they believe it or not. I think it’s worth finding out if that’s the only choice we’re faced with.