Just what part of mass-murdering war-mongering terrorist-backing tyrant do the United Nations top brass not understand? Not only did the UN collaborate with Saddam, enrich itself off Saddam, and object to the overthrow of Saddam, but during Saddam’s final hours, up piped one of Kofi Annan’s appointees, the UN’s so-called High Commissioner for Human Rights (yes, that really is her title), Louise Arbour, doing her bit to the bitter end to raise doubts about Saddam’s trial and postpone his execution. Shortly before Saddam’s hanging, Arbour was hustling out a statement demanding that Saddam be kept around until, by Arbour’s standards, he had exhausted every possible avenue for leniency or amnesty.
The way the UN Human Rights gang has been going, maybe they hoped to sign on an amnestied Saddam as a special rapporteur on internally displaced ex-tyrants. Arbour’s protest comes from the same UN culture that had Libya in 2003 chairing the Human Rights Commission, and then “reformed” the commission into the current Israel-fixated Human Rights Council, with seats for the likes of Algeria, China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. This is the same UN system whence Kofi Annan felt free to call the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam “illegal,” but never applied that word to the activities of Saddam himself — or to his own secretariat’s strange and troubling (but lucrative) Oil-for-Food business partnership with this monster.
Saddam’s hanging was not only justice done; it was long overdue.
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.
8 Comments
1. paul a'barge:You think that’s bad, wait until you read this AP account of Annan by AP’s Edith M Lederer.
And, this is not in the Houston Chronicle’s opinion section.
Dec 31, 2006 - 12:32 pm 2. spynverzyon:We ought to provide the High Commissioner with similar opportunities to pipe up on behalf of Nasrallah, Assad, Mashal….
Jan 1, 2007 - 11:14 am 3. joan:“UN collaborate with Saddam”
Claudia, any thoughts of the US’s collaboration with Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war (when he was gassing the iranians)? You must have seen the footage of Rumsfeld having tea with Saddam and shaking his hand with a big grin on his face?
No.., just wondering
Jan 1, 2007 - 9:12 pm 4. Chip:Louise Arbour is the one who suggested that combatants could use human shields and it was still incumbent upon their enemies to avoid civilian casualties. Lebanon, handcuffing Israel under rocket blitz, natch.
This sort of “logic” will eventually lead to the M1A3 Abrams MBT with the enemy prisoner armor package.
Hey Louise, you said!
Jan 2, 2007 - 7:27 pm 5. Mark H.:Joan,
Are you saying that because Rumsfeld had tea with Saddam Hussein, that multibillion-dollar graft and corruption in the UN then became OK?
Do you apply the same logic to France’s gift of the Osirak reactor to Saddam Hussein?
My opinion is that you couldn’t care less about UN corruption, other nations’ self-interested relations with Iraq, or the twenty million who suffered under Hussein’s secret police for three decades.
That’s where we part company.
Jan 2, 2007 - 11:25 pm 6. joan:Mark
You are right that two wrongs do not make a right.
But as someone who supports international institutions, i think its important that people who dont really follow news understand that yes the UN has its faults but so does the US government and others (corruption, incompetence etc.). Reading Claudia’s website you could easily surmise otherwise.
And FYI, the oil for food programme also saved 100,000’s of childrens lives in Iraq, but that tends to get over looked.
Jan 3, 2007 - 9:36 pm 7. spynverzyon:joan:
Not sure whose version of the “news” you “follow,” but if it “tends to get over looked” that “the oil for food programme…saved 100,000’s of childrens lives in Iraq,” it’s because that claim has no factual basis. Indeed, the UN’s extreme secrecy about the program’s finances renders it hard to make any substantive estimate of what the program accomplished, other than to say that a colossal amount of money went where it should not have.
The difference between the U.S. government and the UN (and similarly Utopian “international institutions” you support) is that the UN is utterly unaccountable to any democratically established rule of law. In fact, the UN very specifically subverts democracy by creating a forum where the world’s worst dictators, thugs, and terrorist sponsors gain respectability, prestige, and the world’s attention.
Worse yet, the UN contributes on a worldwide scale to the same abdication of responsible action that the welfare state creates in the U.S. and other western countries. It’s a known fact (yes, I can cite the studies if you’re interested) that when the state raises taxes to fund wealth transfers (e.g., welfare, social services), private charitable giving declines by an amount far exceeding the value of the state services provided. Basically, people say, “The government’s doing that, so I don’t have to.” By the same token, when the UN can give otherwise responsible countries an excuse to avoid costly intervention and fastidious oversight abroad, they’ll gladly duck their responsibility under the UN’s sham promise to “save lives” (the way it did in, say, Rwanda) and enforce “international law” (as it is now doing by “disarming Hezbollah” and “securing the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers”).
I would agree that U.S. foreign policy has sometimes gone astray, particularly under the influence of “realists” such as James Baker and George Schultz, and especially at the hands of the political weathercocks who, um…guided Clinton’s overseas flings. But at this stage, it’s pure fantasy to imagine that investing more power and resources in a collective like the UN will, on the whole, save lives and improve the human condition. We’d be better off without it.
Jan 4, 2007 - 12:28 am 8. joan:spynverzyon
Firstly, the benefits of the oil food programme and how it helped Iraqi children:
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/oip/human_relief.htm
“UN’s extreme secrecy about the program’s finances”
THe US had US reps on the committee that reviewed every single oil for food transaction. So we can say that the UN i.e. US, UK, and the other security council members failed to take action to amend oil for food. I dont deny they were all culpable.
The UN is accountable to the Security Council and the GA. The later reflects the world as it is, which is not ideal but is realistic. Replacing the UN with a league of democracies might be an option, but bear in mind that the opposition to the Iraq invasion came from other democracies (France, Germany) so that would not have helped the US prior to the invasion.
Your point about the UN providing cover as a scape goat for countries who do not want to take action is very very correct i.e. Rwanda, where the US and the West did not want to take action, they could blame it on the UN.
“I would agree that U.S. foreign policy has sometimes gone astray”
This is true, but then you cite the cause as Baker and Schultz and not Bush and the neo-cons it made me laugh out loud, thanks for the light relief:)
In summary, the UN is an imperfect organisation, but the world needs an international body to address international issues. And remember, outside of the US the vast majority of peoples and countries want and appreicate the work of the UN. And coming from a democratic country i am sure you will agree that the majority view counts.
Jan 4, 2007 - 9:53 pm