Revoke Bolton's nomination...

That’s right; Bush should revoke Bolton’s nomination to the UN. Bush doesn’t need to send, whatever his name is- John, Joe… or Michael Bolton to the UN. The UN needs to be sent to Abu Ghraib to pay for their institutional crimes.

Child rape. Murder. Torture. Embezzlement. Corruption. Graft. Using charity for illicit gain. Cronyism. Incompetence. Sexual predation. Standing by as genocide takes place, then blaming the international community as an apology. Despite the fact that Kofi was in charge of UN forces there, he blames the International Community for what happened. Or is he just speaking with the Royal 'we'?

"The international community is guilty of sins of omission," Mr Annan said.

The genocide - in which some 800,000 people died - occurred when Mr Annan was head of UN peacekeeping forces.

"The international community failed Rwanda and that must leave us always with a sense of bitter regret," Mr Annan said.


"I believed at that time that I was doing my best," he said.


Influenced later decisions as secretary general? What, like negotiating a higher price for allowing genocide?

The commander of Belgian UN forces in Rwanda actually sent a cable to Kofi urging protection for the Tutsi's and warning of impending massacre:


What does it take to tarnish the reputation of this holiest of holy liberal institutions? There are too many horrible cases of corruption, malfeasance, and downright unaccountable evil to catalogue here. Even in prosecuting the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide the International Criminal Court is rife with corruption!!!

...internal audits reveal how little has happened on Annan's watch when misdeeds are reported. From 1998 to 2001, a U.N. staff member forced defense lawyers to pay him kickbacks to process their payments at the International Criminal Tribunal for the genocide in Rwanda. In September 2003, frustrated investigators found that the man had not been fired but, instead, had been shifted to other clerical duties. usnews

Instead of sending an ambassador to the UN Bush should announce that a Marine Brigade is re-nationalizing the property at First and 46th, and that no documents are to leave the building... or enter any more shredders. Essentially this would complete the dismantling of Saddam's regime.

The United Nations has done absolutely nothing to combat global poverty or violence. The 'world body' has in fact been complicit in profiting off of the torture and starvation of an entire nation through the Oil-for-Food scandal. The depth of deception and corruption engaged in by the UN is made all the more stark by it's holier-than-thou attitude about what it represents and believes it is accomplishing. As a world forum it is overpriced and overvalued. It has stopped zero wars, deposed zero dictators, and created zero democracies. What it does produce are resolutions, documents, and reports in plentitude: $2-3 billion dollars worth; enough paper to completely bury poverty and war itself.

Yet what comes of these resolutions? Certainly the resolutions against Saddam were a joke at best, and a cover for selling the Iraqi people into slavery at worst. I know I wake up every morning thankful that the UN is there, making the tough decisions that keep this world safe [sic]. Decisions like deciding what theme the next plenary regional cooperative substantive meeting session should have.

Theme for the regional cooperation item of the substantive session of 2004 of the Economic and Social Council

At its 5th plenary meeting, on 13 February 2004, the Economic and Social Council, decided that the theme for the item on regional cooperation at its substantive session of 2004 should be: "Information technology for development: a regional perspective".
UN docs

In browsing the UN website, I came across an Iraq Memorial. Turns out it is just another example of the self-centeredness of this institution. Just imagine, after all the horror of Saddam's regime, what is the "Iraq Memorial," on their website about? The near million Iraqi's whom Saddam slaughtered? Is it dedicated to the thousands who starved under UN sanctions? No, it's a homage to the handful of UN workers who died in the, "Baghdad Tragedy," replete with international observances in Geneva, New York, and Amman, the Secretary General's Statements, a webcast, a video tribute, an online condolence book, etc. etc.. An incident, after which, the UN decided to turn tail and run from Iraq. So much for helping the world.

Or consider how much the UN has done to combat world corruption merely by establishing, "The Global Programme against Corruption." There's almost nothing to it! You know it has to be effective, because it was drawn up by, "the Centre for International Crime Prevention of the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention of the United Nations Secretariat jointly with the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute."

I'm sure you've seen the crime fighting events of "the Programme" in the nightly news: busting corrupt officials, stopping shady deals, and most of all, researching, "appropriate and up-to-date background information and support and to sustain the technical cooperation measures." Hmm, I wonder if that will be an effective courtroom defense? "We were 'researching' corruption in order to fight it."

The Global Programme against Corruption has been drawn up by the Centre for International Crime Prevention of the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention of the United Nations Secretariat jointly with the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. The purpose of the Programme is to assist Member States in their efforts to curb corruption.

The Global Programme against Corruption is composed of two main parts, the research component and the technical cooperation component. un corruption programme

Was it, "No war for oil?" or, "Oh no, war will stop our oil money, err... I mean research."

It must have been quite a shock to Kofi and company when the simple-minded cowboy president decided to play marshal and actually enforce the numerous resolutions and two faced Security Council pronouncements about ending the terror of Saddam's regime. The UN had everything to lose in the scenario Bush thrust upon them. I can only imagine the guilt and fear of being discovered that must have made their nights sleepless during the yearlong 'rush to war'. The fear of having the world find out that the self-proclaimed keepers of world peace, the progenitors of the highest ideals of our humanistic existence were really in league with the lowest fascist dictator on the planet in a profit-making venture that ensured the continued slavery of the Iraqi people. How embarrassing if details of their 'corruption research' and 'technical cooperation measures' should come out.

In a hundred years from now, it would not surprise me at all if history treats the UN, during these final days of it's existence, as harshly as I do now. Saddam Hussein had the full backing and support of the UN and many of its members; at a cost of course. The Russians, the French, and UN officials all played their (paid) parts in trying to keep Saddam in power.

Did they believe or even care if there were WMD in Iraq? Was twelve years of graft the price of disarmament?

Since the UN is prepared to research global corruption, you'd think it would be sufficient to the task of policing it's own house, right? The UN's investigation of itself seems to be missing the same hard-hitting analysis it reserves for the U.S..

A March report into the oil-for-food program by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said there was no evidence Annan interfered in the award of a lucrative contract in Iraq to the Swiss firm Cotecna, which employed his son, Kojo. reuters

No evidence? I think what Volker means is no evidence we want you to be aware of. It seems Volker is furious that documents have been handed over to Congress under subpoena. Imagine, furious that evidence is leaking in contradiction to his cover-up, ...I mean, investigation.

The official position of the UN is that there is no scandal. UN officials have worked hard to make that true by shutting down auditors, covering up evidence, and denying all charges.

Volker has demanded that congress return documents handed over to it by former UN investigator, Robert Parton. What beguiles me is the reason he says he needs them back. Witnesses lives could be in danger! The testimony of witnesses, who have given no evidence of UN wrongdoing mind you, might make them vulnerable to retribution.

"An overriding concern of the committee is to safeguard the security of witnesses whose lives, quite literally, would be at risk if information about their cooperation became known," Mr. Volcker told reporters at a press conference in New York. watimes.com

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Volker is actually saying here that those who have informed on the UN's illegal activity in the Oil-for-food scandal could be snuffed out for squeeling. That's an illuminating statement. Essentially, the UN is more like an organized crime family than a do-good society. That's scary stuff. No wonder Volker has been hedging in his reports, he is obviously under duress himself.

Let's end this charade now. We could do better without our modern day royalty and just give the $3 billion dollars directly to the poor.

Posted by Eric Simonson at May 21, 2005 8:31 PM