EU Referendum

Showing posts with label Kofi Annan. Show all posts

Annan.01[i-Annan.01]The saying supposedly goes back to the 1919 baseball fixing scandal that surrounded the White Sox. Apparently when their star player, "Shoeless" Joe was on his way to give testimony to the Grand Jury, he was surrounded by a group of boys, one of whom asked "It isn't true, is it, Joe". To which the sad response was: "I am afraid it is."

By the time the story hit the West Coast and became folklore the question had been changed to "Say it ain't so, Joe".

Every now and then I hear news that makes me weep with shame. And I can't help saying, "Say it ain't so, Joe".

I remember feeling like this many years ago when the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was given an honorary GCB (Grand Cross of the Bath, rather a high-ranking gong) in 1978. For the record, many of us knew at the time what a ghastly piece of work the man was, so I hope nobody is going to say "well, how could we have known". He was stripped of the honour in 1989 just a day or so before his highly dubious, legally speaking, execution.

I feel like that now. The Queen, poor soul, has been forced into another humiliating encounter when she gave an honorary knighthood to former UN SecGen Kofi Annan, father of Kojo, brother of Kobina; the man responsible, at an earlier stage of his career, for the massacre in Rwanda; the man on whose watch the oil-for-food scam was allowed to take place etc etc and yet another etc.

This egregious individual, who is not even one of our own crooks but a tranzi, has been given an honorary Grand Cross of St Michael and St George (GCMG, popularly known as God Calls Me God). At least, not being British, he is not allowed to call himself Sir Kofi but what's the betting that the media will do just that, putting the "Sir" into quotation marks.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

COMMENT THREAD

Annan02[i-Annan02]What a wonderful example we have here of the difference between the rigorous MSM with its intellectually independent and hard-hitting hacks and the sloppy bloggers who are eternally predictable in their triviality.

Extreme Mortman (a new one for me) links to the last press conference given by SecGen Kofi Annan (son of Kojo and brother of flat-owning Kobina) and quotes some of the hard-hitting questions asked by the hard-nosed, investigative journalists (hint: Claudia Rosett was not there).

Here is one very fine example:

Mr. Secretary-General, critics and commentators will say what they will about the Secretary-General, but what is important, I'd like to say, is that in your time in office, you have given hope to millions of dispossessed people. And for that, I would say, you will be well remembered. But my Q: as the Secretary-General, you convey moral leadership. Now, how does a former Secretary-General continue to use, without the bully pulpit, that former status to convey and to give moral leadership to the world?

Gosh, the sheer professionalism of that. The independence of thought!

Extreme Mortman asks:

So what do you suppose are the odds that Helen Thomas or David Gregory will treat President Bush this same way during his final press conference?

We all know the answer to that and the words chance and cat and hell spring to mind.

Never mind President Bush. Think of what that pack of hard-hitting, serious and fair-minded journalists have done about Laura Bush having a minor operation for a common form of skin cancer and ... gasp ... not telling the journalists about it. Makes one proud that the world has such a responsible and thoughtful dead-tree media.

COMMENT THREAD

KofiAnnan_II[i-KofiAnnan_II]Undoubtedly, there will be many articles that will try to persuade us that SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) is basically a great and good man, who may have had the odd teensy-weensy weakness, perhaps being too nice to the people who work for him or too innocent for the wicked world he inhabits. In fact, the SecGen has tried to pre-empt his own political obituaries by making a shameless speech in Missouri.

It is worth spending a few minutes on a contemplation of the man's career and achievements. Fortunately a Wall Street Journal editorial has done it for us. It recalls that

When Mr. Annan was named Secretary General 10 years ago, he did so as the U.S.-backed candidate of reform. Jesse Helms, then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Mr. Annan that "if you choose to be an agent of real and deep-seated change, you will find many supporters--and even allies--here in the U.S. Congress."

Alas, Senator Helms's hopes and expectations were dashed and SecGen Annan is leaving the UN in an even worse state than he had found it, to a very great extent as a result of his own activity (or lack of) as head of peacekeeping operations with Rwanda and Srebrenice figuring as highlights and as Secretary General.

After summing up the various scandals of the Annan years, the article boldly shows up a difference in approach:

But the larger problem of Mr. Annan's approach is that, by insisting that only through the U.N. could the world act to protect vulnerable populations, he has made vulnerable people hostage to predatory regimes with seats at the U.N. and made it all the more difficult for the world to act. Compare the fate of the Kosovars--rescued from the Serbs by U.S. military action undertaken without U.N. consent--with that of the Darfuris, who are still at the mercy of militias supported by the Sudanese government in Khartoum, which has effectively blocked serious international intervention.

It is, as we have said repeatedly on this blog, the structure of the United Nations, constantly at odds with its stated purpose that is the weakness at the heart of the tranzi claims for moral, ethical and political superiority.

COMMENT THREAD

In his real farewell speech SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) says among other things:

During my decade as secretary-general, and indeed for some time before that, I have indulged in more than my share of half-truths, quarter-truths, cover-ups, immoral inanities and staggering hypocrisies. I have shuffled paperwork while ignoring genocides, I have rushed to shake hands with tyrants while deriding democrats; I have suffered from memory gaps while adroitly recalling just enough to know what needs covering up. I took office promising to reform the U.N., and instead produced a record that deserves to be summed up by such phrases as peacekeeper rape, procurement bribery, and Oil-for-Food.

Well, no, he doesn't. But he would have done if he had made the speech written for him by Claudia Rosett, the journalist who investigated the oil-for-food scam but, astonishingly enough, was not even short-listed for the Pulitzer Prize.

Kofi%20annan%20055[i-Kofi%20annan%20055]SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) is has been indulging in his favourite occupation: knocking the strongest democratic country in the world, the United States and, of course, by implication, the whole concept of accountable, constitutional democracy. The world should be run by unaccountable, unelected and untouchable tranzi operators like the SecGen.

Speaking in Harry Truman's Presidential Library, Independence, Missouri, the SecGen heaped praise on the 33rd President, who has been safely dead for some years. (Though, I suspect, he may be turning in his grave at the SecGen's shameless hypocrisy.) What a great man, Kofi Annan thinks, not like the present administration.

"More than ever today Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functioning global system through which the world's peoples can face global challenges together," Annan said. "And in order to function, the system still cries out for far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition."

Well, of course, America did not "go it alone" either in Afghanistan or in Iraq but built up a coalition of the willing. Nor did America "go it alone" when it provided speedy and efficient help in the wake of the tsunami. It had Australia, India and Japan as close allies - as fine an example of flexible coalitions being constructed when needed and for as long as needed, while the various tranzi organizations led by the UN created lots of commissions, sent observers who demanded special treatment from the soldiers and sailors who were trying to help the vicitms, and squandered large amounts of money. This blog covered the story at the time.

What irks the SecGen is American dismissal of the UN as the final arbiter of what is right. Is it not interesting that neither he, nor Mark Malloch Brown, his egregious deputy, nor any other spokesperson for the UN and automatic opponent of the US (that terrible go-it-alone bully) ever produces any definite examples of a "functioning global system". Darfur? Srebrenice? The Balkans in general? Iraq? Iran? DR Congo and other African countries infested with "peacekeepers"? Rwanda? Take your pick, Kofi.

COMMENT THREAD

kofi%20anan[i-kofi%20anan]There are certain people in and around political life who are so truly awesome in their sheer ghastliness that their promised disappearance fills me with gloom. Will Sarah Brown, for instance, should her husband ever become Prime Minister, provide me with quite as much entertainment as the egregious Cherie Blair has done and will do for a few more months? I honestly do not think so.

Another one I shall miss (though, I suspect not for long as he will turn up as one of the transnational brotherhood of the great and the good) is SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo). While the dear old UN will go on in its inimitable fashion, Kofi's successor is unlikely to be quite as monstrously entertaining as the ineffable Ghanaian has been. In fact, if Democrat politicians and tranzi-lovers across the world had any brains they would realize that the man who has done most harm to their beloved cause in the last few years has been SecGen Annan.

The man has been pronouncing again and as stupidly and ignorantly as ever. According to Associated Press, the organization with the interesting journalists and non-existent police officers as sources, the SecGen has been musing to the British Broadcasting Corp. on Iraq then and now:

In the BBC interview, Annan agreed when it was suggested that some Iraqis believe life is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein's regime.

"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi's life," Annan said. "If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?'

Yes, indeed, even if the next time you saw your child will be in one of the mass graves uncovered since the toppling of Saddam. My memory may be failing but I do not recall the SecGen making any comments about those many mass graves, some filled only with bodies of children.

There are other aspects of Iraqi life about which the SecGen has forgotten. For instance, there was the small matter of the many thousands being murdered by poison gas in Halabja. By the way, does that count as use of WMDs?

Then there was the mass murder in brutal circumstances of Shias in 1991. Men, women and children were burnt alive. Others were tortured, then murdered. Did they see their children again? And those are only two particularly nasty episodes in the very nasty rule of that mild-mannered Saddam Hussein.

Above all, however, the SecGen has forgotten who is killing children in Iraq. Who are the people who line up vans full of explosives next to a market of a queue of children who are being handed out sweets? Could it be that some of Saddam’s henchmen are still at work? The SecGen tells us nothing about that.

COMMENT THREAD

ClaudiaRosettPhoto[i-ClaudiaRosettPhoto]The admirable Claudia Rosett, who ought to have had the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism last year but for some reason didn’t (something to do with her subject, the oil-for-food scam and other horrors at the UN) has her own blog. And it is full of goodies, as you would expect.

Her top two stories cover the United Nations. In the very latest one, she raises a point many of us have made before:

If Jeffrey Skilling had worked for the UN instead of Enron …. He’d be looking forward to years of dining out with his pals and collecting his pension in comfort. Instead, found guilty of fraud and conspiracy, he’s facing a 24 year sentence.

When it comes to the oil-for-food, “the biggest scam in the history of humanitarian relief”, on the other hand, not a single official involved has been fired, much less prosecuted. SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) goes from one high-faluting statement to another, while his “hand-picked” head of the programme, Benon Sevan (he of the useful aunt) has retired to Cyprus on a full pension.

Moving right along, we come to Ruud Lubbers, former UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who did, actually resign after it had been proven that he had indulged in a spot of sexual harassment in the Geneva office. Tsk, tsk.

Mr Lubbers is about to reappear in Brussels as one of the list of speakers at a European Parliament conference.

The subject? Why, ethics, of course! To be precise, (who comes up with this stuff?): “Corporate Culture and Spirituality: Business and Ethics — Complementary or Contradictory.”

What position Lubbers will take — whether he is in the complementary or contradictory camp — is not yet clear. The press release, in language that might just as well have been lifted straight out of your average UN office wastebasket, says: “This conference primarily addresses the role of an ethics based approach to sustainable corporate success and leadership performance.”

It seems that Lubbers is being billed as former Prime Minister of Netherlands, his UN stint being quietly buried. But, as Ms Rosett says, it would be a pity if the conference did not discuss the UN and its vagaries within the framework of “Corporate Culture and Spirituality – Business and Ethics”.

COMMENT THREAD

Annan.0[i-Annan.0]SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) is coming to the end of his second term in office but, I have no doubt, that his retirement will not be impoverished. Yesterday the Times devoted an editorial to the incredibly important question of who his successor might be and who it ought to be.

It seems that, according to Buggins’ turn, it will have to be an Asian personality, as the last one of those was U Thant from 1961 to 1971. He was followed by Kurt Waldheim and because the list was that way round, the Europeans are out of the consideration this time round.

Well the former Thunderer thinks that this is a very poor idea. SecGens should be chosen on the basis of merit. What kind of merit?

read more...

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]SecGen Kofi Annan is certainly going out in a blaze of glory. The last session of the General Assembly under his enlightened guidance will be addressed by Hugo Chavez as well as President Ahmadinejad.

Will President Chavez ever set foot in Venezuela, a country, which may be oil rich but where most pumping stations are finding it hard to stay in business? In the last few months he visited Cuba, Russia, Belarus, Syria and probably a few other dictatorships I cannot quite recall at the moment.

President Ahmadinejad is due to address the General Assembly, on September 19, at 7 pm. President Bush is due to address the meeting at 11.30 am of the same day and in between, we are told by NewsMax.com, SecGen Annan (father of Kojo) will host a lunch, which will be attended by both. I am not sure what I hope for: to have lots of other people sitting between them or to have them sitting next to each other.

Now here is a question to our readers: should there be a demonstration in NYC on that day, who is it likely to be directed against? President Ahmadinejad has managed to con the EU3 negotiators over the nuclear fuel enrichment question and has snapped his fingers laughingly at the Security Council. Will anybody accuse him of endangering the world through his unilateralist policies?

President Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel and has denied that the Holocaust had ever happened. Iran has been running a competition for Holocaust-denying and anti-Semitic cartoons. Will anyone suggest that the man is interested in ethnic cleansing at best and genocide at worst?

The man’s domestic record includes the arrest and beating up of various demonstrations, including of women, who protested against the unfair rape laws; the destruction of satellite dishes and arrest of bloggers; the public hanging of young boys who had been accused of being homosexual and of a young girl who had been raped by an older relative and was, therefore, accused of immoral behaviour; a call for the removal of all non-religious and liberal-minded lecturers from the universities. Will anyone carry placards showing the Nazi swastika on a picture of the Iranian president?

As Allahpundit reminds us, the last time President Ahmadinejad addressed the General Assembly and ranted about the need for the world to be conquered by “peace and justice” as interpreted by him and his friendly ayatollahs, he also told the world that he felt a special light around him and saw the world leaders watch him unblinkingly for many minutes. Will anyone make disdainful comments about this ridiculous religious self-importance?

Well, I think we know the answers to all those questions. I am prepared to have a bet with anyone who is willing to put money on it, that all those comments, statements, demonstrations and placards will be in evidence, all centred on President Bush.

COMMENT THREAD

U_Friggin___N[i-U_Friggin___N]I must admit that I have not until today come across the Bullwinkle Blog, which I found through the invaluable Instapundit.

Its writer has come up with an absolutely splendid idea as to who can replace SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) when he finally departs from the UN to pastures even greeener. Who other than Tony Soprano?

The argument is impeccable:

"He’d steal less. He wouldn’t take any shit from anybody and a UN Resolution would be enforced, or else."

Actually, I am not convinced about the first one of those.

COMMENT THREAD

kofi_annan[i-kofi_annan]It was on 12 September last year that my colleague wrote a somewhat less than laudatory analysis of UN SecGen, Kofi Annan.

Not quite a year later, we read this, published yesterday. And then, today, we read this.

The one is a Telegraph leader on the failure of the UN in Darfur, where this venerable organisation has been sidelined. The other is a stonking analysis in The Business, of the Iranian situation. There, guess what, the UN has been sidelined.

The final chapter on Lebanon, of course, has yet to be written but if the present UN force is supposed to be "UNIFIL on steroids", then the dose administered must be below detectable threshold.

All one can say of Mr Annan is, which bit of "useless" don't you understand?

COMMENT THREAD

Italian%20soldier[i-Italian%20soldier]The EU foreign ministers are meeting with SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) to decide on the European contribution to the required 15,000 international peacekeeping troops, required by Resolution 1701. Until yesterday the tentative offers from various member states added up to 4,200 with France contributing the magnificent number of 200.

With the cease-fire more or less holding but grumblings being expressed by various Lebanese politicians who think, on no clear evidence, that if the strengthened UNIFIL is not deployed soon, there might be clashes between the Lebanese and the Israeli forces, the “international community” is losing face.

Yesterday President Chirac went on TV to announce that France would send 2,000 troops (still short of the 5,000 that had been expected and had persuaded the United States to go along with French watering down of the Security Council Resolution. Still, the higher promised number will mean that the French will lead the force, with Alain Pellegrini, the French general presently in charge of the UNIFIL force continuing in that position.

This seems rather hard on the Italians who offered 3,000 soldiers, presumably once their contingent had been withdrawn from Iraq, and to lead the international troops immediately.

Al-Jazeera reports that 170 French troops have arrived in southern Lebanon to join the 400 that had been there before the latest bout of fighting in Lebanon. It is still unclear where the promised 2,000 will come from and when they will take up their position. Nor is it clear how many will other EU member states contribute.

There is a move to convene another meeting of the UN Security Council on Monday.

In the meantime, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told the Italian newspaper La Reppublica several interesting things. In the first place, he made it clear that it was the job of the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah, not that of UNIFIL. Whether the Lebanese forces will be up to the task he did not specify. But Hezbollah, he explained, had agreed to the deployment of Lebanese troops in southern Lebanon, not a phrase that fills one with confidence for the future.

More interestingly, if one can trust Prime Minister Siniora’s judgement, he asserted that Hezbollah was no longer the powerful force it had been before the recent fighting.

“The Lebanese PM also told the newspaper he does not expect Hizbullah to drag Lebanon into a war again.

"I don't believe it can happen again," he said. "I don't think Hizbullah is in the same position where it was before the war, and won't be able to repeat what it did. It learned the lesson from what happened."”

This is a somewhat different assessment from the one most analysts have been rushing to make. Fouad Siniora seems to believe it, though, because he spent some time in the interview discussing the likelihood of a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon.

Michael Totten, a widely published analyst and blogger who had lived in Lebanon for some time makes this comment:

“No Lebanese politician would have dared to say such a thing two months ago with a Syrian gun pointed at the right side of his head, a Hezbollah gun pointed at the left side, and the reactionary mentality that prevails in certain Lebanese quarters.”

Of course, there is still a long way to go and Hezbollah and/or UNIFIL may well manage to derail any possible negotiations.

One of Agatha Christie’s better spy thrillers is called “They Came to Baghdad” and deals with a rather villainous organization led by a man who sees himself as a superman, intending to destroy what exists and build a completely new world structure. Not all that far-fetched really. At the centre of the novel is a projected conference between the Soviet and the American leaders in Baghdad and, therefore, all sorts of people, important and otherwise descend on that city.

Well, if not Baghdad, then Beirut (maybe) as the discussions continue about that international contingent that will, together with the Lebanese army, ensure peace on the Israeli-Lebanese border.

The line-up seems to be: 200 French of whom some have begun to arrive with the Minister of Defence insisting that a better mandate is needed. True enough but who co-sponsored Resolution 1701 and insisted on a speedy agreement in the Security Council? France has also called for a meeting of EU ministers to “co-ordinate” the European part of the projected UN force as has Italy's Prime Minister, Romano Prodi. When in doubt, call a conference to co-ordinate something or other.

Germany will probably send a naval contingent but no land or air ones and is likely to concentrate on humanitarian aid to Lebanon to which the United States has already given $230 (£121) million.

The current favourite to lead the international force is Italy, who has promised 3,000 soldiers but there is a caveat.

“But Italy's offer to lead the force appears to be conditional on an agreement being reached on a new UN resolution, the AFP news agency reported.

The agency quoted Mr Prodi as saying a new resolution should provide "a specific mandate, specific contents and a very clear definition of the alliances".”

Again, fair enough but was this not clear from the moment Resolution 1701 appeared on the negotiating table? The right-wing opposition in Italy is likely to play on the general dislike of foreign military adventures in that country (at the moment, anyway) and on there being little support from other European countries. As Reuter’s reports through Al-Jazeera:

“Italy's centre-right opposition, mindful of the public sensitivity to military casualties, said Rome's enthusiasm was unmatched by its neighbours.

"Chirac will send a few generals, Germany a launch or two, while we have to send troops dressed as kamikazes in the Italian flag," said Francesco Storace of the rightist National Alliance.”

What a lovely picture that presents. The Italian Foreign Minister Massimo d’Alema has emphsised that, although disarming Hezbollah was quite a good idea, it was more important that Israel must not break the truce. Otherwise the Italian troops cannot go in. Whether they can go in if Hezbollah breaks the truce remains a moot point.

“On Monday, the Shia militant group's deputy leader rejected calls for it to disarm. Sheikh Naeem Kassem reportedly told the Arabic TV station al-Jazeera: "I say it clearly: the resistance will continue. We must remain in a state of readiness with this enemy [Israel]."”

This does not bother our own super-tranzi, Mark Malloch-Brown (or, needless to say, SecGen Kofi Annan) whose biggest worry is that Israel should have no say in the make-up of the international force. Israel, as our readers will recall, expressed some concern about countries with whom it had no diplomatic links and who did not acknowledge the country’s existence, being part of the international force.

“"Yes [the force] must enjoy the confidence of Israel, but that doesn't give them a right to blackball individual contributions," he said.

"We'll expect them to look at... the totality of the force and whether it represents a broad multilateral balance."”

I dare say Mr Malloch-Brown expects Santa Claus to come down the chimney every Christmas Eve as well.

Meanwhile, Salim Mansur has had a look at Resolution 1701 and has come to the conclusion that it is under Chapter 6 (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) rather than Chapter 7 (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression). This is important. Chapter 6 Resolutions leave it to the participants to sort the problems out with the UN looking on and generally guiding procedures. Chapter 7 Resolutions give the UN power to enforce them.

“Resolution 1701 calls for "cessation of hostilities" between Hezbollah and Israel and, thereby, establishes an outrageous equivalence between a terrorist organization and Israel, a member state with a democratically elected government.

It reiterates earlier resolutions (1680, of this past May, and 1559, of September 2004) that called for all "foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon" and for "the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias."

But what has happened since those resolutions? Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon by June 2000. The effort to get Syria to withdraw as well culminated instead with the still-unsolved murder in February 2005 of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, who was instrumental in securing the passage of Resolution 1559.

As for the disbanding of militias, Hezbollah has only gathered strength with the full backing of Iran and Syria.

The war started by Hezbollah on July 12 illustrated, as if any further proof was needed, that Lebanon has little more than an empty shell of a government. It lacks any meaningful authority over its territory, and de facto power rests with a terrorist group that does the bidding of Tehran and Damascus.

Since Resolution 1559 has remained unenforceable, there is no reason to think that Resolution 1701 will fare any better.”

It is, perhaps, just as well that as far as any of us can tell, the Armageddon promised for August 22 by Iran does not seem to be happening. The UN might decide to pass another Resolution.

beruit%20restricted[i-beruit%20restricted]As the post mortem continues about the latest war in Lebanon – and will continue until the next one starts, as Hezbollah has flatly refused to abide by the agreement so lovingly crafted by SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) – various interesting details emerge.

To start with, Lebanese politicians are getting worried, as well they might be. The country, if it can be called that, is now at the mercy of Hezbollah and its Syrian and Iranian sponsors. There is some evidence that the politicians and military commanders, having done nothing to disarm Hezbollah and prevent the importation of arms into Lebanon or about the creation of that state within a state, were thinking that perhaps Israel will solve the problem for them. Naturally, they would sit on the sidelines and cry foul every time the IDF bombed so-called civilian targets. The future looks considerably more bleak for them than for Israel.

Meanwhile the Beirut international airport has opened to commercial flights. Amid all the cheering there seems to be no mention of the fact that if it could be opened that easily it was presumably not bombed by those nasty Israelis, despite their well-known propensity to bomb everything indiscriminately.

The Lebanese army, having proved to be completely useless in the many months since Syria’s part-retreat from the country and having more or less sat the recent conflict out, is slowly taking up positions in southern Lebanon to prevent further attacks on and by Israel. Since they have already announced that they neither can nor will disarm Hezbollah, their achievements in this field are awaited with bated breath.

Another part of the whole arrangement that is awaited with bated breath is the appearance of the international force, for which there have been precious few volunteers. Past history of UN forces in the Middle East does not fill one with any great hope for a peaceful arrangement.

Who is to lead the contingent? The general assumption seems to be that it will be France and the BBC is terribly excited in a muddled sort of way about the prospect.

“Many see the French as natural mediators because of the strong historical ties between the two countries.

France's role in helping to negotiate the UN resolution allowed it to continue mending its relations with the US after the past divisions over Iraq.”

Those strong historical ties are not precisely that of equal partners, France having been the imperial ruler of Lebanon for a couple of decades until the Germans occupation of the former. Would the BBC advocate British meddling in Egyptian or Sudanese affairs because of the “strong historical ties”? I think not.

It is, of course, quite sensible for France to mend its relations with the US but the tortuous negotiations over the UN resolution that became a laughing-stock before the proverbial ink dried on it may not necessarily achieve this.

The same story points out that both President Chirac’s and Prime Minister de Villepin’s approval rating went up by 5 per cent but noticeably does not say what the figure had been before.

Still, even the BBC has to admit that the problems for France are only beginning. Exactly, what is it going to do in southern Lebanon? How many troops can it spare and who else is going in with them? They are already bogged down in Côte d’Ivoire and taking on Hezbollah will be a far harder test.

Public opinion in that country seems as incapable of thinking things through as it is in Britain, which is a comfort to those of us who have been somewhat depressed by the latest YouGov poll.

Seven out of ten, responding to a poll by the newspaper La Croix, are in favour of an international force and 53 per cent are in favour of sending French troops, because it is for peace, though it might bring terrorist attacks to France. (If it is only carbeques in the banlieux that does not count.)

The politicians, however, are worried.

“French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie voiced concern about deploying troops without clearly defined goals.

"France wants the mission's rules of engagement to be clear and it to have real means," she told French TV.

"Sadly, all too often, the United Nations forces don't have the power that they asked for."

The main political parties share such reservations.

Jacques Myard, an MP in France's governing UMP party and a member of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, told the BBC the last UN resolution
did not make it clear how France can act.

"I know that a lot of military, high-ranking officials in France are reluctant if this mandate is not very precise," he said.

The opposition socialists have also warned that "extreme vigilance" is needed, saying the UN resolution does nothing to address the conditions necessary for a political agreement that would guarantee the security of peacekeeping forces.

Above all, France wants to avoid a situation where its own soldiers find themselves having to disarm Hezbollah fighters.”

As it happens, Philippe Douze-Blasty has already announced that France has no intention of disarming Hezbollah, preferring to use “diplomatic methods”, whatever they might be in the circumstances. This, too, is known as speaking loudly but carrying a very small stick.

Still, there might be a solution to this problem: Turkey.

“Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, in Beirut yesterday for talks, reportedly received the message that "all sides are waiting for the friendly Turkish soldiers" to take part in the United Nations sponsored peace-keeping force in southern Lebanon. FM Gul noted that the final decision from Ankara would come following his upcoming Sunday visit to Israel.”

Let us not forget that Turkey, in her previous incarnation as the Ottoman Empire, also has strong historical links with all the countries in the region.

COMMENT THREAD

Erkki Tuomioja[i-Erkki Tuomioja]Now is the time, surely, for the European Union to display the effectiveness of soft power, to speak with one voice, to show that it has a strong presence on the international scene. But then, we say that every time there is an international crisis (and they do come thick and fast) and every time we look around and see nothing.

Once more we have to point out the bleedin' obvious: there can be no common foreign policy if there are no common interests.

Still, let us have a look at what the Europeans have been up to. The presidency of the European Union rests with Finland at the moment (and I bet they wish it didn’t). Thus, it fell to Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja to chair the emergency session and to come up with some pointless platitudes.

The EU, he told reporters, must make a united stand, even if it means breaking with the United States on the issue of what is to happen in southern Lebanon. Of course, if the EU paid a little less attention to what the United States is doing, in order to stand up to it, and a little more attention to what is going on in the region they are talking about, that famous common foreign policy might emerge. Or not.

Breaking with the American stance, which is, roughly speaking, that Israel has a right to defend itself and that the problem must be solved on a more long-term basis than just an immediate cease-fire that is unlikely to be kept by Hezbollah, in any case, presumably means speaking up against Israel. Does that mean that the united stand and strong voice will be for Hezbollah? Well, up to a point.

“It is unacceptable for Israel to continue with its current policy. The words of Mr (Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert and his plans for further military attacks (are) concerning and we have this message to him: it is unlikely to bring military success, it will only fuel the support for Hizbollah and other extremists in the region.”

Well, that’s as may be. So far, support for Hezbollah has been muted in the region, many Arabs and Arab governments fearing the organization’s sponsor, Iran, more even than hating Israel. In any case, what precisely, does Mr Tuomija suggest?

It seems that the EU is about to put pressure on Israel, otherwise its credibility will be in question (don’t snigger, please) to have a cease-fire and then get involved in a long-term political solution. Or so EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner told Reuters.

Yes, but what then? How is the EU going to ensure that the cease-fire is maintained and that Hezbollah is disarmed? Are they going to send in troops to maintain peace on the border? Are they going to sit back and say, well, it will all turn out all right at the end and wring their hands when it does not?

Italian Foreign Minister, Massimo d’Alema, has no doubts on the subject:

“Either there is a ceasefire and an effort by the international community, or there is war. ... The international community does not intend to participate in war.”

How nice for the international community, which has no troops with which to participate anyway. Unfortunately, Israel does not have that choice.

As it happens, the EU is not alone in calling for a ceasefire. It would appear that the Organization of the Islamic Conference intends to do the same, according to the Malaysian Foreign Affairs Ministry. The Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is the present chairman of the OIC and he has called an emergency meeting for August 3. Crisis? What crisis?

Meanwhile the various European countries have been making statements.

Italy, France, Finland, Poland, Sweden and Spain are considering sending troops to Lebanon. EU candidate Turkey and Muslim Asian state Indonesia have also said they may contribute peacekeepers.

Given the Italian Foreign Minister’s comments, Italy may not be considering these matters all that hard. In any case, the international force, the only thing according to Israeli Prime Minister, Ehmud Olmert, that will bring about that much coveted cease fire has to be under UN auspices. Or so everyone seems to agree. The trouble is that the UN has no auspices. The Security Council met yesterday to discuss matters and adjourned sine die to analyze at leisure what the political standing of that international force will be.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel seems unable to make up her mind whether Germany will send troops if asked by all sides and as part of an international force or whether the country’s armed forces are severely overstretched. The latter is more likely to be true.

Britain and the United States have already ruled themselves out of the game, in this case that of “What’s the time Mr Wolf?”. Poland has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and is unlikely to produce any significant numbers for yet another far-off war. (And who knows how long the Polish government will be in place?)

Then there is France. There is always France. There is a strong possibility that any international force would be led by them, having been so spectacularly successful and humanitarian in sundry African countries.

According to Haaretz

“The force must be larger than the current UN Interim Force in Lebanon and be more than the 10,000 suggested by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said in an interview published on Tuesday. Military officials in France have said the new Lebanon force should be 15,000-20,000 strong. "There is no question of it being a UNIFIL Mark Two," Alliot-Marie told Le Monde daily.

"It must be a very large international force with very precise missions. It must be well-armed, have substantial firepower and armor. It must be credible and capable of making itself respected by everyone," she added.

So where are those numbers of troops going to come from, especially as, according to Mme Alliot-Marie, the international force must be given the right to fire if it should be seen as necessary? Which country is going to send troops into that quagmire (I use the word advisedly)?

There is even some doubt as to what France can contribute despite Mme Alliot-Marie’s fighting words:

“Only countries with real military know-how should take part in the force, which should avoid becoming a kaleidoscope of nations that would lose its effectiveness, she said. Military experts say France, which already has some 13,000 service personnel deployed abroad, could send around 5,000 troops to Lebanon, but the French daily Le Figaro said Monday that military planners felt the country was reaching its limit.

"It won't be easy. We've reached our deployment limit now, not so much in terms of numbers of personnel but in terms of command capacity," the paper quoted one officer as saying.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, right, shakes hands with his French counterpart Philippe Douste-Blazy, left, at the Iranian Embassy, in Beirut, Lebanon, Monday, July 31, 2006[i-Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, right, shakes hands with his French counterpart Philippe Douste-Blazy, left, at the Iranian Embassy, in Beirut, Lebanon, Monday, July 31, 2006]Meanwhile we have seen another very fine example of French diplomacy. The Syrian, Iranian and French Foreign Ministers are supposed to meet in Damascus. The last two have already met and shaken hands in Beirut.

Philippe Douste-Blazy was full of praise for Iran and her role in the Middle East:

“Iran is a significant, respected player in the Middle East which is playing a stabilizing role, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said earlier Monday in Beirut. "It was clear that we could never accept a destabilization of Lebanon, which could lead to a destabilization of the region," Douste-Blazy said in Beirut.

"In the region there is of course a country such as Iran - a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region," he told a news conference.”

One can argue about the great civilization, in particular its timing, but there can be no argument about the “stabilizing role”. Iran has made no secret of its support for Hezbollah, for Shi’ite militias in Iraq or of its desire to obliterate Israel.

On Sunday Reuters published the following:

“Iran's hardline forces should get ready to take revenge on Israel and the United States for the offensive on Lebanon, the head of the Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.

"The Basij and Revolutionary Guards should prepare to get even with the Zionists and Americans," Yahya Rahim-Safavi was quoted as telling Islamic militiamen by the conservative Fars news agency.

The Basij are volunteer Islamic militiamen.

"The timing of the this will be announced by the leader," he added.”

Later on, Fars, the Iranian news agency that has access to the hard line military units, announced that those quotations were being withdrawn, though it is not clear by whom.

Meanwhile, the EU has condemned unreservedly the strike at Qana, naturally enough without bothering to investigate the growing number of questions about it, and all attacks on “innocent civilians” (though not Israeli ones, who are, presumably never “innocent”). And to add to the convoluted picture, the European Parliament has supported the Finnish Presidency’s call for an immediate cease-fire. No, since you ask, they have no idea how it can be achieved or what might happen afterwards.

In any case, that famous united stand is as elusive as ever. While the EU has issued a draft statement, which calls for an immediate cease-fire, Britain, Germany and the Czech Republic have promptly rejected it, announcing that they, too, would like to see a cease-fire but do not want a definite timeframe.

Just another crisis in the creation of the strong European voice on the world stage.

COMMENT THREAD

Bush%20-%20Blair[i-Bush%20-%20Blair]By now most people would have seen some account of the Bush – Blair open mike session and despite the concerted efforts of the British journalists, very little can be made of it, as, indeed, the protagonists realized it almost immediately:

“Asked about the microphone mishap during his final briefing of the summit, Blair quipped that it was "all about transparent government" -- smiling and tapping the microphone in front of him.

Bush "sort of rolled his eyes and laughed" when told the comments had been audible and a copy had been made, said Press Secretary Tony Snow, according to The Associated Press.

"Actually his reaction first was, 'What did it say?' So we showed him the transcript, then he rolled his eyes and laughed."”

There is, as it happens, one particular phrase that caught everybody’s attention and, frankly, it is not all that exciting. President Bush said:

“See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over.”

Oh my. Where are my smelling salts? That nasty man used a nasty word about some very nasty people.

Alec Russell, who seems to have decided that being the Daily Telegraph’s Washington correspondent meant being a one man demolition squad to trash Bush and most of America, sniggered in his piece: “It is unclear who "they" are.”

Actually, it is very clear. “They” are the UN and what the President, “who sees the world in simple terms” was responding to is Prime Minister Blair’s fervent support for SecGen Kofi Annan’s suggestion of an international peacekeeping force of several thousand highly trained troops (provenance unspecified) sorting the latest Middle Eastern crisis out.

Perfectly reasonable: UN peacekeeping forces have not actually achieved anything very much at any time and have been part of the problem in many places from Rwanda to Srebrenice. It is quite clear what is behind this explosion of fighting so all they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah … etc.

As usual, what is interesting remains hidden to journalists who just bleat like blessed little baa-lambs: Bush has a simple view of the world; Blair is Bush’s poodle; baa-baa-baa. In fact, Blair is playing his normal game of trying to force Bush to take up the multilateral or, rather, tranzi-led option.

We saw this during the run-up to the Iraqi war when precious weeks were wasted and much good will dissipated in the pointless dragging of issues through the UN. That was done on Blair’s insistence and a very silly idea it was, too.

As Jim Bennett pointed out in his talk about the Anglosphere, Blair’s standing has been very high in Washington, something that could have been turned to good use for Britain. Instead, Blair has squandered it all away by trying to pressurize Bush to do things he neither can nor wants to do: sign up to Kyoto, join the International Criminal Court, submit to UN guidance – all part of the tranzi agenda.

Obviously, he is trying to influence Bush in that direction again and, equally obviously, he is going to fail again.

COMMENT THREAD

As expected, the G8 Summit has come to an end without achieving anything. What could it possibly achieve. It was bad enough as G7 but the addition of Russia (hardly one of the world's leading developed or, for that matter, free economies) any chance of agreement disappeared like autumnal mist.

Still, most of them (not Russia or France) have now pronounced on the Middle Eastern crisis, pointing the finger of blame at Syria and Iran, though, I gather, one of Tony Blair's spokespersons has tried to play that down.

In the Wall Street Journal Europe Gerald M. Steinberg, Director of the Conflict Management Programme atthe BarIlan University, has directed attention to another aspect of European involvement in the current mess.

The problem with the article [subscription only] is one of definition. Mr Steinberg writes a good deal about France and her allies and refers to something he calls "Europe's reaction".

The story (or, rather, this particular chapter of it) startsin 2000 when "the European Union was an enthusiastic supporterof unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the security zone in southern Lebanon". As it happens, many Israelis were supporters as well but what made Europe's or, to be quite precise, France's interference so interesting is the following:

"In detailed talks that took place at the French ambassador's residence in affa, in which I participated as an academic consultant, the Europeans assured us that once Israel retreated, Hezbollah would lose its raison d'etre as a 'militia' and transform itself into a political party. France and its partners would send peacekeepers to prevent terror and missile attacks against Israel, help the Lebanese army take control of the border, and disarm Hezbollah."

None of this happened. Hezbollah claimed the withdrawal as a victory and proceeded to accumulate rockets and other arms along the Lebanese border. Syria remained in Lebanon as long as possible and even after withdrawing its troops kept agents in place. And continued to arm and train Hezbollah, which has also been receiving arms from Iran while the EU3 wasted three years in fruitless negotiations that only played into the hands of the Mullahs.

The peacekeepers did not materialize. Hezbollah kept lobbing rockets, crossing the border and causing explosions as well as indulging in a spot or two of kidnapping.

We all know what the European reaction until the end of this week was to Israel finally deciding to act over the Lebanese border and, naturally, hoping that this action will have its effect in Iran as well.

France, who was remarkably silent for several years about Syrian troops in Lebanon, led the huffing and puffing about "a disproportionate act of war", "entirely sovereign country, a friend of France" and so on.

As Mr Steinberg points out, there had been no condemnation of the many acts of war against another sovereign country and also supposedly a friend of France.

"But if European leaders are serious about preventing instability and promoting their own economic and sercurity interests, they will also have to share the costs of containing terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. To help resolve the immediate crisis and prevent further damage to Lebanon's fragile economic and political structure, Europe's leaders can stiffen Beirut's backbone by conditioning aid to the release of the kidnapped Israeli solders.

Cease-fire initiatives must lead toHezbollah's disarmament. By tying further economic assistance to an end to terror attacks, Europe can actually help create the basis for long-term stability."

Failing all that, we might consider not funding directly or indirectly any terrorist organizations in the future.

I see SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) has called for peacekeeping troops to be sent to the Israeli-Lebanese border. A swell idea. Were there not peacekeeping troops on the Suez canal once upon a time?

Burning oil tanks at Beirut airport after an Israeli airstrike[i-Burning oil tanks at Beirut airport after an Israeli airstrike]

The escalating war in the Middle East, as opposed to the usual state of hostility, punctuated by endless Kassam and the odd Katyusha missiles being lobbed over into Israel by Hamas (though not the official Hamas, which is “upholding the cease-fire”), Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade and sundry other trigger happy groups, has forced even the British MSM to turn their mesmerized eyes away from the NatWest bankers and Lord Levy.

Since there has been little reporting in the past about what was really going on along Israel’s borders, most newspapers and electronic media are finding it a little difficult to explain why the Israelis have attacked Gaza and, more to the point, some parts of Lebanon. Must be the IDF wanting to destroy everything in sight. In fact, as Stephen Pollard points out on his blog, that is more or less the line the BBC has been taking, but then you would expect that, would you not.

It is worth following developments through the blogosphere, if for no other reason than speed. Bloggers, particularly those in the area, both Israeli and Lebanese, manage to get up stories that are then spread round the world by other bloggers.

What interests us on this blog, inevitably, is the reaction of that budding power in geopolitics, the European Union. Have we not been told that all these European countries need to unite in order to have a strong voice in the world? The question is, have we or have we not a stronger voice and what is that voice saying?

Well, to start with, France does not see the need for participating in that strong voice being one of the first countries, together with Russia, to criticize Israel’s reaction to the kidnapping of its soldiers, first by Hamas, then by Hezbollah. (A curious attitude on the part of Russia, given her own problems in Chechnya and the Central Asian republics.)

President Bush is attempting to get the G8 conference to speak up with one voice on the subject but that is proving to be impossible, partly because of the French and Russian stance.

Other countries have put in their tuppennyworth:

“Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja of Finland, which currently holds the EU presidency, voiced Europeans' fears that the conflict could expand into Syria, which some countries feel may have had a hand in the crisis.

"This is in no way desirable, and the consequences could be truly uncontrollable," Tuomioja said. Russian President Vladimir Putin called on all sides to stand down, while Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero warned Israel it was "making a mistake" to attack Lebanon.

"One thing is defense, which is legitimate, and another is a counteroffensive of widespread attack," Zapatero told Punto Radio. "It won't bring anything other than an escalation of violence."”

Am I the only one to detect a feeling of floundering there? After all, it is admitted (quite openly, too, in the case of President Chirac) that Syria and Iran are fomenting the trouble. Why are there no calls for them to clear out?

Meanwhile, the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper and the Australian, John Howard, have stated clearly that Israel had a right to defend itself. Well, that’s the Anglosphere making itself heard. Where is Britain?

It is reasonably clear that the terrorist groups, Hezbollah in particular, have decided to stir up as much trouble as possible, to cause a huge conflagration in the Middle East. Another aspect, as Con Coughlin in today’s Daily Telegraph points out, is the need Iran feels for taking away attention from her nuclear ambitions and, probably, mounting internal difficulties.

In Lebanon there is a clear acknowledgement by some politicians that the problem has been caused by Syria through Hezbollah and Israel’s targets remain those connected with that organization. For some the last few days indicate that Hezbollah has over-reached itself and will be the one to be destroyed in the conflagration it caused.

Meanwhile the EU is acting predictably. For reasons that few people can really understand, the High Panjandrum of the CFSP, Javier Solana is going to the Middle East, no doubt to sort all those problems out. Pompously he announced:

“I am in permanent contact with the different parties and with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. Following these contacts, I envisage going to the region.”

Well, that should do it. However, his reception in Israel may not be all that cordial since the EU has also announced that the Israeli response was disproportionate. To which the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert replied:

“What exactly is the criterion by which one measures the proportion of more than a thousand missiles shot at innocent civilians against the measures that were taken by the State of Israel in the last few days? Can one measure the anxiety, the fear, the shocks, the lack of security of tens of thousands of people living day-in and day-out for almost a year under the constant threat of missiles shot at them? When was the last time that the European Union condemned this shooting and suggested measures, effective measures to stop it?”

There is a good deal more of interest in Mr Olmert’s replies. Some of them have been transcribed here and they are well worth reading as they sum up the situation better and more pithily than all that weeping and wailing produced by “disproportionate response” brigade.

To add to the geopolitical confusion the UN resolution, vetoed by the Americans, that was to condemn Israel for her “disproportionate response” spoke only of Gaza, not Lebanon.

COMMENT THREAD

Blair%20%26%20Africa[i-Blair%20%26%20Africa]Reaction to the PM’s latest wheeze has been mixed. Njongonkulu Ndungane, the Anglican archbishop of Cape Town has welcomed it. SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) has clearly welcomed it because it will provide him with yet another opportunity to travel round, sit in meetings and pontificate (and who knows, there might be another medal of achievement at the end of it).

Sir Bob Geldof is very happy about it, as he, too, will be given extra publicity and a chance to pontificate. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, who has recently been prevented from becoming president-for-life, is equally happy. He will be one of the panellists.

Other agencies, possibly because they were not asked, are less happy and are muttering about buck passing and backsliding.

So, what’s this all about? Well, a year or so on from G-8 and Live8 and any other 8 you might care to think of, nothing much has happened about reducing poverty in Africa. Of course, some of us have always maintained that “Make Poverty History” is considerably less useful than the alternative proposed by us: “Make Stupidity History”.

So, the Prime Minister has decided to set up a new panel of world leaders to monitor the aid given to African countries. It is not entirely clear whether its effectiveness will be monitored as well or merely the amount of money that is being shelled out, the usual criterion for much of aid giving as Richard Tren, the Director of Africa Fights Malaria said at a recent seminar he gave at the International Policy Network in London.

I shall do a more detailed posting on the seminar and Richard Tren’s account of the past, present and possible future of the war against malaria.

In the meantime, let it never be said that this blog is merely negative; that we criticize politicians and their activity, without offering positive suggestions. Here is one for Mr Blair, who, we assume, is genuinely worried about conditions in Africa.

Forget about panels and world leaders; ignore Bill Gates and his money; break off relations with Sir Bob Geldof and SecGen Kofi Annan. Concentrate on the following:

The number of malaria cases in Africa are not precisely known, though Bob Snow of the Wellcome Institute has estimated 600 million around the world, most of which are on that continent. Malaria hits children in particular and devastates whole communities. It reduces the African economy by something like 1.2 per cent of GDP – a large amount in the poor world.

It is an almost wholly preventable and curable disease and the prevention will cost us nothing or next to nothing.

Richard Tren pointed out that after a great deal of campaigning by Africans and others various organizations like USAID and WHO have changed their attitudes to controlled domestic spraying with DDT and other pesticides. The one organization that is out of step and refuses to acknowledge recent medical and scientific work is the EU.

The EU has huge powers as donor and economic partner of African countries. It is using those powers for ill purposes. Instead of helping the countries that are desperately fighting this scourge, the EU and, yes, we are part of this nasty conspiracy against African people, is trying to prevent routine use of domestic spraying, which has been effective for decades in prevention of malaria.

May we humbly suggest to Mr Blair that he should use what influence he has to change the EU’s attitudes. And if he cannot do so, to proclaim that Britain will not abide by this senseless, unscientific, disgraceful behaviour.

COMMENT THREAD

Malloch%20Brown[i-Malloch%20Brown]Oh dear. Boo-hoo. This is just so sad. Waaahh-haaah!. Can’t help laughing ….woops …..sorry, crying. Mr Mark Malloch Brown (yes, one of ours), deputy to SecGen Kofi Annan (father of Kojo) has attacked the United States for … oh dear, somebody give me a handkerchief … undermining the United Nations.

Unacceptable, he spluttered in true “Yes, Minister” style.

“"The prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable," said the deputy, Mark Malloch Brown. "You will lose the U.N. one way or another."

In a highly unusual instance of a United Nations official singling out an individual country for criticism, Mr. Malloch Brown said that although the United States was constructively engaged with the United Nations in many areas, the American public was shielded from knowledge of that by Washington's tolerance of what he called "too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping."

"Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News," he said.”

And what do these heinous organizations report or discuss? Could it be the oil-for food scandal, or the unresolved question of the limousine purchased by the egregious Kojo Annan, or the behaviour of UN troops in Africa and the Balkans? Or, for that matter, the suspension of one UN official after another because of financial malfeasance? Then again, there is the saga of sexual harassment in UN offices. (Maybe it’s Prescott who should become the new UN SecGen, not Blair as it is touted round the MSM. He will be right at home.)

John Bolton’s office reacted icily with his spokesman, Richard A. Grenell, pointing out that Malach Brown did not extend them the courtesy of sending over a copy of the speech ahead of delivery. In the fullness of time they will respond.

Of course, even the New York Times knows what the real problem is:

“The speech reflected frustration in Mr. Annan's office with a looming crisis over the United Nations budget, which, under a six-month gap agreed to under pressure from Washington in December, will pay the bills only until the end of June.

The deal was struck to link budget approval with achievement of significant management reforms, and Mr. Bolton made frequent mention of Congressional impatience with the United Nations and legislation that would authorize Washington to start withholding its dues. The United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations, paying 22 percent of its budget.”

One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at this self-pitying nonsense.

COMMENT THREAD