Via Normblog, we bring you Kofi Annan:
Annan also dismissed any suggestion that France, Russia and China had been prepared to ease sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in return for oil contracts.
Iraq tried to manipulate foreign governments by awarding contracts — and bribes — to foreign companies and political figures in countries that showed support for ending sanctions, in particular Russia, France and China, the final report by the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group said earlier this month.
But Annan said it was “inconceivable” that Saddam’s activities could have influenced policy in the countries concerned.
“I don’t think the Russian or the French or the Chinese government would allow itself to be bought because some of his companies are getting relative contracts from the Iraqi authorities,” Annan said. “I don’t believe that at all.
“I think it’s inconceivable, these are very serious and important governments. You are not dealing with banana republics.”
You don’t get many hanging curveballs like that in your life.
[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN’T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
As a laigniappe, the L.A. Times today has a long article on the “Emergency Sex” U.N. trio.
Six years later, after stints in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda and Liberia, the three came to believe that not only is the U.N. unable to keep pace with its grand ideals in the new world order, it actually allowed two genocides. They cope by immersing themselves in their work, alcohol, faith and “emergency sex.”
Thomson, who spent two years pulling bodies out of mass graves in Rwanda and the Bosnian town of Srebrenica — corpses of people who had sought safety with the U.N. — concludes: “If blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers show up in your town or village and offer to protect you, run. Or else get weapons. Your lives are worth so much less than theirs.”
— JK UPDATES (LA Times link expired) —
* See Thomson’s colleague and former U.N. human rights lawyer Kenneth Cain in The Guardian Observer, as he recounts his experiences at greater length.
* This Sydney Morning Herald editorial also has excerpts.
* Samizdata reviews trhe resulting book, Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures
Link is inaccessible unless you give a credit card number.
But I’m dying to know about the “emergency sex.”
A.L.;
A little late and certainly OT, but “here’s something”:http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17519 that may help you in your deep deliberations on who to vote for.
Wow, VT, you must be a saleman in real life – showing an insulting Tom Tomorrow cartoon is absolutely going to make sure I’m in the fold.
S’funny, but one of the things that keeps me out of the fold is the attitude I get from the people in it. It’s not that I’m overly thin-skinned; it’s just that when people ask me trust their judgement of events, it’s helpful when they aren’t also calling me an idiot.
A.L.
Is Kofi Annan telling the truth?
It’s inconceivable, Theoretically, practically and in all other ways inconceivable.
And remember: never trust the UN when death is on the line!
(This is a long comment, but I did some research. You are welcome to delete if it seems presumptuous.)
Between 1954 and 1969, the U.N. admitted 53 newly independent nations, many of them conspicuously repressive dictatorships. During the same period, many countries slid into the grasp of repressive Juntas and dictators. Each emerging dictatorship sends a delegation to the United Nations, and those delegates enjoy the privileges and benefits afforded diplomats and ambassadors.
In exchange for the international legitimacy this bestows upon the ruling thugs, those countries in turn cooperate with UN bureaucrats in self-serving and lucrative schemes. Just for starters, the dues assessed primarily upon the richest nations provide princely remuneration and perquisites for the bureaucrats and staffers of the U.N. itself.
The most successful of those bureaucrats is the present Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, by a long road. He is the FIRST Secretary-General to have been elevated from the ranks of the U.N. bureaucracy itself, rather than from among the delegate-ambassadors sent from the various member states.
Think about that.
In a culture which penalizes failure, and constantly seeks scapegoats, what kind of person is elevated by the distilling process that rewards blandness, inoffensive vagueness, and amiable platitudes?
Kofi Annan emerged as the master of appearance of sincerety and concern and the master of elegantly rationalized restraint from actual commitment or action.
In 1994 when Hutu in Rwanda began slaughtering Tutsi tribesmen by the tens of thousands week after week, Koffi Annan was at that time in a position to have ordered action to temper or halt that slaughter, and CHOSE NOT TO ACT. The United Nations withdrew its troops when ten soldiers were murdered. The United Nations pulled out and let the genocide proceed, let EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND victims to be slaughtered in three months. Many of them were killed with machetes and garden tools, when a few regiments with small arms might have protected them.
Just a few years later, AFTER Kofi Annan had been given the leadership of the U.N., when the United States had been leading a NATO coalition to stem the massacre of Muslims by Serbian Christians, the United Nations grudgingly agreed to send peacekeepers. In one instance, they declared the town of Sreberniça a “United Nations Safe Area,” and left a batallion-strength guard of Dutch U.N. troops in close proximity. When Serb forces attacked, the Dutch commander requested air strikes.
After his fourth request, he was told that he had submitted the request on a form that is incorrect (evidently by FAX!!), and he must re-submit for it to be considered. Eventually, two Dutch F-16s bombed the Serbian positions, but it was far too late. Serb General Radko Mladic and his troops had already taken the town and the surrounding area days earlier, and held 30 of the 350 Dutch troops along with some 20,000 Muslim men, women, and children.
The utter impotence and military bunglng of the United Nations (not any cowardice or lack of spirit by the Dutch troops as I used to believe) allowed Mladic and his murderers to slaughter an estimated 7,000 Muslim men in the four days from July 12 and July 16, 1995.
You know, I read that book. Very little actual sex in it for those who are looking for “the dish”.
Upon finishing it, I certainly went away thinking even less of the U.N. than I already did. It’s like any huge bureaucracy anywhere — some of the people actually care and are trying to do good work, some of them are just there to party / further their own careers / build power bases for no particular reason, etc., and the rest are just floating by. It did seem obvious to me that there are large numbers of totally incompetent lifers at the U.N. holding positions of authority. And that’s where it gets dangerous — because unlike many (most?) huge bureaucracies, people’s lives are in the balance when the U.N. screws up, as it almost inevitably does.
I haven’t seen the interview but if everything that has been reported in the article is verbatim and in full context then I’m inclined to ask Annan for some of what he’s smoking.
bq. “”I don’t think the Russian or the French or the Chinese government would allow itself to be bought because some of his companies are getting relative contracts from the Iraqi authorities, Annan said. I don’t believe that at all.”
Not only does he believe the UN in incapable of committing crimes he seriously believes the Russian, French, and Chinese governments are bound by their own morality. Who on earth hired this guy?
bq. _”Annan also warned against any possible U.S. military action to prevent Iran developing its nuclear program.”_
Will some one explain to me what Annan’s solution to the problem is.
As for the reference to “The Princess Bride”:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/ it’s one of my all time favorites AL. I can’t help but replay the scene concerning iocaine in my head at the moment. Maybe it’s time to watch the DVD again.
“Inconceivable” in that context means he desperately doesn’t want anyone else to think it. The reasons are rather obvious, of course.
French, Russians and Chinese – great coalition there of freedom loving nations and peacekeepers for the world to model after – great friends of the UN as well from what I understood from Kofi Annan himself.
Geez, this guy must think we are all on lithium! French agents helped support Saddam, Russia sold weapons to him and the Chinese – there is a great example of freedom of choice today. Let’s see – they threaten Taiwan on a regular basis, they seem unwilling to force North Korea to back down from the brink of conflict, they surpress groups etc. Not very good examples, Mr UN secretary-general – try again!
David March’s comments strike deep in the heart of the matter, I believe. The bungling of close air support handed Mladic Srebrenica on a plate. Whether it was secret French deals promising no air strikes, NATO creating needless complexities, or way too many chiefs and not enough indians, the result was the beginning and the end of the U.N. “Safe Area” idea.
But if it had succeeded as a model, whereby a deterance force, given authority by a resolute, consensual political will and supported by adequate intelligence, air support, and cogent leadership, we would not now have such disasters as the Sudan. The world needs Safe Areas now more than ever.
I guess Kerry’s “global test” would involve a pro-American stance of a group of prominent U.N. members, including France, or even maybe a pro-American UN Security Council resolution.
I won’t hold my breath.
Regards from Europe (or should I say Eurabia? [1]),
Joel Català
[1]: “Beyond Munich – The Spirit of Eurabia”, By Bat Ye’or, FrontPageMagazine.com (July 2, 2004),
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14050
As my comments are longish and slightly tangential, I’ve posted them to my blog at http://www.safnet.com/writing, if anyone’s interested.
“I have traditionally been an apologist for the United Nations, but lately I have been forced to question my unconditional support. While the U.N.’s mission is entirely laudable, its execution — particularly in regards to peacekeeping — seems to fall short. We have seen U.N. failures in Korea, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and more. What has brought this about? Is the whole system flawed? Who is more to blame — the bureaucracy or the nations that are “united”? Perhaps these are not the questions to ask. Instead, I suggest that we ask — where is the grassroots appeal, and where is the recognition of human spirituality?” Continue…