Claudia Rosett, Kofi Annan’s worst nightmare, continues her two-year- long (or roughly) deconstruction of Secretary-General-Speak in today’s WSJ. Here she takes on Kofi’s curiously-timed reform package:
From there, Mr. Annan forges on to propose nothing less than reforming the entire known universe, via the U.N., while he bangs the drum for a budget to match. He wants to expand his own staff, change the world’s climate, end organized crime, eliminate all private weapons, and double U.N.-directed development aid to the tune of at least $100 billion a year, “front-loaded,” for his detailed plan to end world poverty. This comes from a U.N. that only three months ago was finally strong-armed by Congress into coughing up the secret internal Oil for Food audits confirming that under Mr. Annan’s stewardship the U.N. was not even adequately auditing its own staff operations.
After a year in which scandals have been erupting from every vent in the U.N.’s traditionally cloistered corridors, assorted members of Congress have been wondering whether Mr. Annan deserves even the budget he’s got already. Some, such as Sen. Norm Coleman, have called for Mr. Annan to resign. Now, in much the same way that despots faced with popular unrest like to announce giant patriotic dam-building projects involving the pouring of huge amounts of cement, Mr. Annan is presenting his new improved save-the-world reform plan, conveniently timed to serve as a distraction from the oil-for-fraud, sex-for-food, theft, waste, abuse and incompetence stories that for the past two years have bubbling up around the same U.N. he already reformed for us back in 1997.
Some people think Ms. Rosett’s the UN’s worst enemy, but actually I think she’s its best friend.
UPDATE: According to the NY Sun, the UN–which had previously denied doing it–is paying for kleptocratic Oil-for-Food director Benan Sevan’s legal expenses. (Did the US Gov’t pay for, say, Spiro Agnew’s legal defense?) Of course, this isn’t new for the international organization. They are using Oil-for-Food money to pay for the investigation into, yes, Oil-for-Food — hence stealing from the Iraqi people twice. Does anyone really want to listen to reforms from Kofi Annan?
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.
15 Comments
1. Fausta:As CR said in her article on Annan’s plan for a UN makeover, The devil is in the details, and because this is a blueprint for the future of the entire earth, that means a lot of room for big trouble. This report is not a benign document.
Annan knows this, and has timed his proposal not only with the emerging bad news, but also with the BBC poll that (surprise!) claims that
There is overwhelming popular support for the UN to be reformed, according to a BBC World Service poll among the citizens of 23 countries.
They favoured a more powerful UN and backed the idea of adding Germany, India, Japan and Brazil to the organisation’s Security Council.
Most wanted the Security Council to be able to override the veto power of the permanent members.
Kofi’s in showbiz, for sure.
Mar 23, 2005 - 7:52 am 2. Lola:There we go again . . . fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Anyone have an idea of what should go after “fool me thrice”???
Mar 23, 2005 - 8:23 am 3. ahem:I say we “nuke it from outer space; it’s the only way to be sure…” (Aliens)
Mar 23, 2005 - 8:29 am 4. Morgan:“…what should go after ‘fool me thrice’???”
How about …wink, wink.
Mar 23, 2005 - 8:31 am 5. Eg:Roger, in answer to your question, Does anyone really want to listen to reforms from Kofi Annan?
The answer is not ‘no’ but ‘hell no!’
We may as well be talking to a 20 year junkie about kicking the habit.
We’ve only uncovered the proverbial ‘tip’ with the majority of stories like this, Peacekeepers cheat UN of $500,000 in phone fees, yet to be told.
Maybe had this ‘reform’ process begun some 40 years past there might be some small hope but not today.
Pay our membership fee’s, kick them out, maintain an opposing presence but that’s it…. Kofi’s ‘reform’ is little more than another attempt to transform the POC organization into some form of world governing body. We need to get away from referring to it as ‘reform.’
Mar 23, 2005 - 8:49 am 6. jedrury:Justification for paying the attorneys’ fees is stated as: “to facilitate his cooperation, it was felt there was a need to ensure that he could represent himself effectively and deal with
the extensive enquiries of the panel.”
The UN’s seemingly endless facility to voice meaningless verbiage is a wonder to behold.
Mar 23, 2005 - 9:39 am 7. Katherine:I think that resignation of Kofi would be the end of any meaningful reform at UN. The moment somebody like Havel gets the post everybody will turn, sigh with relief and assume that the problem is solved. In the meantime, corruption and worse will continue. So, I am officially offering my support for Kofi. I even have a nice slogan for him: ìRotten Secretary for a Rotten Organizationî.
Mind you, what I really like to happen is to replace the UN with a Council of Democracies, where the membership would require mastering basics of electoral process and the rule of law. With fully transparent finances. A girl can dreamÖ.
Mar 23, 2005 - 9:52 am 8. Steven Mitchell:Heh. Katherine, I was just thinking that a guy could dream, though my dream was less ambitious. All it had was an agreemen–between USA, Japan, Australia, and any minor contributors that wanted in–to suddenly stop funding UN and deliver an eviction notice. If they want to move to Geneva and posture, no skin off my nose.
Mar 23, 2005 - 10:42 am 9. Ignatz:Hi, Roger,
I did some contract work for one of the UN agencies in the late 1990s, and a highly placed fellow therein told me that through-put for food aid in sub-Saharan Africa is FIVE PERCENT.
The rest is raked off by the kleptocrats.
The man who told me this is a very hardcore leftie, old school; and he giggled as he said it.
Nearly everything we donor nations give the Third World, in other words, goes to line the pockets of the tyrants who are creating the problem in the first place (how many democracies have famines? think about it.)
Mar 23, 2005 - 11:10 am 10. Steven Mitchell:Ignatz, you don’t even have to be a Democracy to avoid famine. Any remotely competent government that gives two figs for it’s populace or morality can avoid a famine. Widespread, good nutrition is hard to achieve. Widespread famine is caused.
P.J. O’Rourke discussed it at length in his book on population control, clean water, and related topics. Note that he was talking to recognized experts in the field. There has not been a famine caused by simple lack of food in a very long time. I forget the time frame exactly, but it was well over 150 years–closer to 300 if I remember correctly. *All* the famines of the 20th century were deliberately caused by the state.
And less anyone dismiss O’Rourke as a mere humorist, I cite him only as a very readable and entertaining introduction to the topic. What he said was so incredible that I dug quite a bit on the topic after first reading his book. I found no serious and logical arguments against his points.
Mar 23, 2005 - 11:44 am 11. thibaud:What Steven Mitchell said. Famine in the modern era is a political weapon wielded by states against recalcitrant private agricultural interests. Especially today, given the extraordinarily high crop yields that modern agriculture achieves around the world, there is utterly no reason for famines to occur other than as a deliberate act of war against a people.
Stalin used famine as a means of warfare against the peasantry in Russia and Ukraine, and elminated them as a political force by simply starving millions of them to death. His technique has been used again and again in faraway countries about whom we know little, and in faraway countries about whom, as with today’s Zimbabwe, we know much. Mugabe today is deliberately creating a famine in order to eliminate opposition from private landowners who do not even pose any threat to his misrule.
Mar 23, 2005 - 2:06 pm 12. Paul Snively:Assuming that this is true, it’s the best argument in favor of buying guns that I’ve heard in my entire life.
Mar 23, 2005 - 3:33 pm 13. thedragonflies:“He wants to expand his own staff, change the world’s climate, end organized crime, eliminate all private weapons, and double U.N.-directed development aid to the tune of at least $100 billion a year”
The trouble with these people is that they are serious, and others are sick enough to support them. Why? What possesses people to support such corrupt thugs and fools? The power of denial is all I can come up with. People want to believe the feel good fantasies of a good U.N. so they do.
Scary.
Mar 23, 2005 - 4:05 pm 14. thedragonflies:Oops, forgot to sign the above.
Mar 23, 2005 - 4:06 pm 15. Californio:“eliminate all private weapons” Hey, how can kids defend themselves against UN peacekeeper pedophiles? Seems unfair to me! (sarcasm alert)
Mar 24, 2005 - 12:00 am