… that the new UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, speaks bad French. Ban doesn’t officially take charge for two more weeks, but at a press conference just after his swearing-in, he was immediately confronted with some of the burning issues at the UN, including a reporter’s query, in French, about why French in all its growing obscurity remains the second official working language of the UN. To understand and provide a suitably evasive answer, Ban had to default to English. How wonderfully unfashionable! How pleasantly un-Kofi-like! (Not that Kofi’s French was all that good, but he had those trademark platitudes down pat). Of course, because Ban is taking over the throne of a $20 billion system of global patronage and pork-barrel spending, he could probably confine himself to Pig-Latin and still become the toast of the same well-decked dinner tables that over the past 10 years have so reverently hosted ofi-Kay nan-Nay (or is that “nnan-Ay?” — any pig-Latin experts out there — how do you translate “Annan?”)
The other piece of good news — one can always hope — is that Ban says he is still reviewing “all contracts” for Kofi’s battalions of Under-Secretaries and Assistant-Secretaries, and won’t be making decisions until Kofi’s out of the building. If he’s smart, he’ll have them all out on the street and be counting the UN silverware by noon on New Year’s Day.
Apart from that, the events surrounding Ban’s swearing-in this morning, starting with a General Assembly tribute to Kofi Annan that went on for almost two hours, including homage from Cuba (speaking for the the Non-Aligned Movement), had all the integrity of Andropov’s 1982 funeral oration for Brezhnev (remember them?).
Some of the words used in tribute to Kofi this morning: “far-reaching reform” “exemplary” “outstanding” “inspirational dignity” …
Some words not mentioned in the homage to Kofi: bribery, graft, corruption, Oil-for-Food, procurement, hypocrisy, genocide, cover-up, moral bankruptcy, Mercedes…
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
9 Comments
1. bourne2y:Ever see the cute algebraic proof that 2=1?
Here’s another kind of proof.
There’s a rule at UN that one cannot receive a UN staff pension if one is receiving another government pension. Annan earned a UN staff pension during his 30+ years as a UN staffer. He is also entitled to a pension from the General Assembly as a retired Secretary-General. Must he give up one or the other? What to do?
Fortunately, there is a third way, a UN way. Annan will receive the commuted value of his UN Staff pension lump-sum cash (about $1 million) and then he can accept his “one” pension from the GA.
I hope I’m wrong about this. I hope it, but I doubt it (*).
(*) Thank you, Mark Twain
Dec 14, 2006 - 3:57 pm 2. Terry Crane:US, together with Australia, cannot leave UN to the unruly crowd that runs it. To leave US, US first has to reduce it. Several easy steps:
Dec 14, 2006 - 7:40 pm 3. Otter425:- Stop all non-compulsory payments, especially UNRWA, but also UNESCO etc;
- Bombard with demands for reforms, like flat membership fees, aid receivers cannot vote, etc.
- Dump Human Rights UN thing – actually, move it outside. Build Human Rights Coalition from US, Australia, Israel, some of Europeans, and demand in UN to shift Human Rights issues to them. Conditions on entry – religious freedom, working democracy etc.
Ofi-kay Nan-anay
you move the first syllable to then end of the word and add the “ay” suffix, if memory from my pig-latin days serves.
Dec 15, 2006 - 10:03 am 4. Pat Patterson:I thought Kofi Annan’s name was a verse from the old Shirley Ellis hit, The Name game.
Kofi!
Dec 15, 2006 - 7:50 pm 5. Mark:Kofi, Kofi bo Bofi Bonana fanna fo Fofi
Fee fy mo Kofi, Kofi!
If you really wanted to stir up the UN you would tie U.S. aid to it’s seriousness in pushing for Democracy in non Democratic countries and then threaten them with:
Building a League of Democracies in which we group together with Canada, Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Britian, etc. and use the funding to push for and promote Democratic movements world wide.
Sounds like a great idea to me, particularly because it exposes the ugliness and uselessness of the current U.N. system.
Dec 17, 2006 - 10:55 am 6. jo:Mark
A League of Democracies is an interesting idea- but it should be noted that such a body would not have endorsed the Iraq war either (remember it was France-a democracy- that blocked the resolution.)
Also note that Israel would not qualify as , according to the Economist magzine, it is a ‘flawed’ democracy. If you let in ‘flawed’ democracies then you also have to admit Palestine, Hong Kong and a bunch of anti-US southern american states.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf
Dec 18, 2006 - 12:57 am 7. John Fembup:“according to the Economist magzine, it is a ‘flawed’ democracy”
But Jo, every democracy was, is, and will be a “flawed” democracy. The Economist wouldn’t be the membership chair anyway.
Right now, it’s worth waiting to see what the new Secretary-General can or will do. His early remarks about the “unacceptable” UN actions in Rwanda and in Darfur are mildly encouraging. On the other hand, it just may be impossible for human effort to move the over-entitled and less-than-interested UN bureaucracy. But still I say wait a while and see what the new guy can do. He had the support of the US for his nomination and still has it. Let’s watch and see.
Dec 18, 2006 - 6:05 pm 8. jo:John
Yes, i agree we should see what the new Sec Gen can do. I really hope they get rid of the 30 plus development agencies (UNDP, UNODC, WHO, UNICEF etc etc) and merge them into one streamlined “UN Development Agency”- that would result in massive cost saving i.e. 1 HQ instead of 30 separate HQs that they have at present; it would also mean a much more efficient UN at the country level (the UN has offices in 100 plus developing and middle income countries supporting development programmes).
Dec 18, 2006 - 9:32 pm 9. Merkur:This is slightly deranged.
“Build Human Rights Coalition from US, Australia, Israel, some of Europeans, and demand in UN to shift Human Rights issues to them.” How exactly would you set up criteria for this coalition that would be any less arbitrary than the previous – and unacceptable – Human Rights Commission? Especially considering that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the ICRC have all criticised the US’ human rights record?
A League of Democracies that involves “Canada, Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Britian, etc”? Presumably you won’t be including France and Germany, because despite being democracies they both opposed the war in Iraq?
Dec 20, 2006 - 11:49 am