http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/.../u_n/index.html
Full Version: John Birch Lives
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
| QUOTE |
| If American conservatism is truly the fount of "new ideas," as its publicists incessantly assure us, why do conservatives constantly promote the stale old ideas that obsessed them in 1962? Back then, the extremists of the ultra-right regarded the United Nations as the advance guard of the international communist conspiracy. "Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.!" blared the bumper-sticker slogan of the John Birch Society, while the National Review called for the U.N. to be "liquidated."   Today, although the rhetoric is not quite so shrill, the Birch Society's ideological descendants still feel the same way. With the U.N. beset by scandal, the right can't resist the opportunity to sever American ties with the world organization. Heedless as always of damaging traditional alliances and America's global reputation, they have opened a campaign to undermine and ultimately destroy the U.N. For the moment, conservative critics are focused on U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. They've demanded his resignation as punishment for corruption and mismanagement of Iraq's "oil-for-food" program. Designed to ease economic sanctions on the Iraqi people by allowing oil to be traded for food and medicine, the program fell prey to exploitation by Saddam Hussein during the final years of his dictatorship. From newspaper investigations, it is clear that Saddam used the program to enrich himself and to import illicit items -- and that various companies and political figures in Russia, France, China and the United States, among others, profited along with the dictator. The most embarrassing revelations for the secretary general involve his son Kojo, who enjoyed a lucrative, conflict-ridden consulting contract with Cotecna, a Swiss firm accused of abetting Saddam's abuse of the oil deals. That has prompted Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Mont., who chairs a Senate committee investigating the scandal, to urge Annan to quit. That demand is now echoing around Congress and the conservative media, from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News to the cover of the National Review. An American politician denouncing legalized bribery and conflict of interest sounds mildly ridiculous to anyone familiar with Washington's campaign financing system (and the most recent adventures of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay). But Coleman's assault on Annan would be premature and demagogic even if it weren't so hypocritical. Last April, the secretary general appointed Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve Bank chairman whose integrity has never been questioned, to oversee an internal investigation of the oil-for-food program. Annan has cooperated with the probe, and Volcker recently promised to release the evidence he has gathered early next year. But Coleman and the Annan-bashing claque can't wait until then. Behind the attacks on Annan lies the broader purpose of bringing down the U.N. itself. Once praised by the likes of the late Sen. Jesse Helms for implementing fiscal reform, the secretary general provoked deep enmity on the right by opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and by criticizing its illegality again last September during the U.S. presidential campaign. Worse yet, U.N. inspectors made the terrible mistake of being correct about the nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. For the Bush administration and its conservative allies, the U.N. represents embarrassment and obstruction. Seeing no value in debating and discussing world problems with lesser nations, they regard the U.N. as nothing but an unworthy obstacle to the exercise of American power. To them, the world body symbolizes all that they hate about multilateralism and diplomacy. Certain starry-eyed neoconservatives broach the idea of a new global organzation that would only admit "legitimate" democratic governments (as defined, perhaps, by the Heritage Foundation or the Wall Street Journal editorial board). In the neocon scenario, the U.N. would be hollowed into a meaningless, impoverished shell, and left to such pariahs as Kim Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs. As fantasy, this explains much about the mind-set of the neoconservative right in the aftermath of the Iraq debacle. They need somebody to blame, other than themselves, and Annan provides a most convenient target. As policy, however, the abandonment of the U.N. is just as crazy as when the John Birch Society printed its first bumper sticker -- as the neocons might acknowledge if they listened to our closest allies. Responding to the latest attacks on Annan, the British government did not hesitate to affirm its support for him and for the multilateral system that he symbolizes. On this issue the rest of the world, legitimate, democratic and otherwise, echoes Britain. Most of the world's nations believe that the U.N. needs to be reformed to deal with the problems of the new century, not ruined to satisfy ideologues in Washington. Thanks to a distinguished panel convened by the secretary general, important reforms are on the table, although the panel's report is overshadowed for the moment by scandal. Its proposals will remain on the world's agenda in the months to come because there is, in fact, no realistic alternative to the U.N. despite its flaws. Meanwhile Kofi Annan and his aides may eventually have to answer for the corruption uncovered on their watch, but they are entitled to due process and a full examination of the facts. More important, the fate of Annan should have no effect on America's commitment to the U.N. The politicians trying to railroad him -- and to wreck the organization he leads -- will only succeed in isolating the U.S. again, at a moment when we should be seeking to rebuild our damaged alliances. What was lunacy in 1962 is no saner now. |
I'll say...
'Bina.
Well said, Bina..but I still prefer to smack down these Bircher kooks for their domestic policies and their scattershot racism. (the fact that Kofi Annan happens to be Black and an African wouldn't have much to do with the JBS's vendetta on him, wouldn't it?? Naaaaaaaaaah!!!)
Back in the bad old day of David Duke's campaign for Louisiana governor in 2001, one of his biggest boosters just so happened to be none other than John Rarick, who was a big time segregationist Congressman from the Baton Rouge district..and a charter member of the Birchites. And if I remember rightly, I don't believe that Mr. Rarick ever denounced or even repudiated some of the whackier statements from the JBS' either, about interracial dating being a "Communist" threat (right up there with dancing and floridation, I guess).
Sometimes I wonder how many of these freaks ended up on the bylines of these new Farther-than-Far-Right groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens and the like...given some of Trent Lott's latest smack about Kerry being a "left-wing French-wine drinking socialist", I'd say that the only thing that changed was the name plate. Seen one racist kook, seen them all.
<yawn, yawn>
Anthony
Back in the bad old day of David Duke's campaign for Louisiana governor in 2001, one of his biggest boosters just so happened to be none other than John Rarick, who was a big time segregationist Congressman from the Baton Rouge district..and a charter member of the Birchites. And if I remember rightly, I don't believe that Mr. Rarick ever denounced or even repudiated some of the whackier statements from the JBS' either, about interracial dating being a "Communist" threat (right up there with dancing and floridation, I guess).
Sometimes I wonder how many of these freaks ended up on the bylines of these new Farther-than-Far-Right groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens and the like...given some of Trent Lott's latest smack about Kerry being a "left-wing French-wine drinking socialist", I'd say that the only thing that changed was the name plate. Seen one racist kook, seen them all.
<yawn, yawn>
Anthony
Yeah, I'd say you're onto something there. These isolationist freaks are all white, and definitely fascistic and racist. It must KILL them to have to answer, however remotely, to the authority of a BLACK man from Africa... 
'Bina.
'Bina.
I had my first LTE published in the Santa Barbara News Press when I was 17.
I got a threatening letter from the Birchers. My parents were SO proud.
I got a threatening letter from the Birchers. My parents were SO proud.
What cowards--threatening a teenager for having an opinion not pre-approved by them? Yeesh.
'Bina.
'Bina.
| QUOTE |
| Responsible parties There's one situation that we're all painfully aware of, in which a top official of the U.S. government oversaw a war that began in a flurry of now-disproven charges and then degenerated into disastrous and worsening chaos. During the course of this war incidents of shameful torture were perpetrated by the U.S. military and those hired by the U.S. military. Yet this official did not take responsibility and step down; indeed, when his boss cleaned house and fired a passel of his peers, the official was specifically asked to stay in place. Then there's this other situation, in which the top official of the U.N. oversaw a program that may well have been be marred by significant amounts of corruption. There's even a charge of petty corruption on the part of the official's son. An investigation led by former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, an unimpeachable "wise man," has yet to weigh in with a verdict. But voices from within the same administration and party that have accepted no responsibility or consequences for their botched war and their torture victims are the first in line to call for the U.N. official to take reponsibility and step down. Secretary Rumsfeld, meet Secretary Annan. You two gentlemen have a certain amount in common these days. Isn't it amazing, though, how differently the Republican powers-that-be view your two cases? I swear my jaw dropped on Friday evening as I listened to the fulminations (on the PBS News Hour) of Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, who has publicly called for Kofi Annan's resignation. Let's look at Coleman's argument in detail: "Mr. Annan was at the helm of the U.N. He must, therefore, be held accountable for the U.N.'s utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses. It's in his interests and it's in the interest of the U.N. to step down, and I say this without pointing the finger of accusation against the secretary-general. Clearly he knows that people who were under him, people that he put in place allowed this massive fraud and abuse to occur.... There's no dispute that Saddam Hussein perpetrated a massive fraud on the Oil-for-Food Program, stole billions of dollars, used it to fund terrorism, rearm himself and to bribe high-ranking individuals connected to member states and Kofi Annan was the guy at the center. He was the boss at that point in time.... In any other organization in the country or in the world, a CIA [I assume this is a transcription error for "CEO"] who oversaw, who was in control when a multibillion dollar fraud took place under his nose and under people that he appointed to oversee the program would step down.... He should step back, get somebody fresh in there, then we can have the transparency and credibility we need to get to the bottom of this.... My criticism is that he was at the helm. We do not have evidence today that ties him and so this shouldn't be about him." OK, Coleman's point one: Annan was in charge when some really bad stuff went down, and though no "evidence" "ties him" directly to that bad stuff, we call for him to resign -- "without pointing the finger of accusation against him" -- because it's the right thing to do. This, of course, is precisely what Democrats and Americans everywhere who were disgusted by Abu Ghraib demanded of Secretary Rumsfeld. In fact, the secretary of defense's responsibility at the top of a disciplined military chain of command was if anything much clearer than that held by the leader of a loose international organization that serves many masters. Back to Coleman: "And I don't believe there's any way for us to credibly investigate all of this if the guy who was in charge of the organization, who had appointed Benon Sevan is the guy who's going to receive these reports and have responsibility for ferreting out the fraud.... And if we're going to get to the bottom of it -- if he doesn't have credibility -- how do you have the guy who was in charge at the time of the fraud be responsible for ferreting it out?" OK, Coleman's second point: We can't count on Volcker to report the truth because the Volcker investigation will deliver its conclusions to Annan himself. Well, let's see, who did the investigators of Abu Ghraib deliver their reports to, again? I don't recall an independent counsel being given years of time, massive budgets and free rein to pursue the matter. Former Sen. Tim Wirth of the U.N. Foundation, set up by the News Hour as Coleman's foil, invoked the Abu Ghraib comparison himself, but I'm afraid he fumbled it. Here's what he said: "I think to suggest that because Kofi Annan was the secretary general at the time and because there was a problem that's being looked at independently that he should go is a little bit like saying that Don Rumsfeld ought to leave because of the Abu Ghraib scandal or because of what went on with Halliburton or so on. I mean, that's sort of an absurd jump to make." Well, no, the point is, it's not an absurd jump. In any other administration Rumsfeld would have been out on his tuches ages ago. And if he didn't have the integrity to tender his own resignation, any president with a a soul and a conscience would have fired him and his whole cadre of incompetent lieutenants as the first step in cleaning house after Abu Ghraib and trying to set the war against the al-Qaida terrorists back on track from the disastrous Iraq detour. (Well, a president with a big soul and conscience would have resigned himself, but that's probably asking too much of any politician.) We're still waiting for the full record on Kofi Annan and the oil-for-food program. A reasonable person could argue that Annan ought to quit simply for being the man in charge at the time the program went awry. But you can't make that argument with a straight face unless you accept that the same logic condemns Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and probably George W. Bush himself. In my book -- pardon me, I should say "according to my moral values" -- corruption is bad, but torturing people and launching unnecessary wars under false pretenses is worse. (Of course, there's a theory that the Republicans are just getting Annan back for his criticisms of the Iraq war. But they're above that. Er, right?) Coleman closes with this: "Why are we arguing over Kofi Annan? Why doesn't he step back, bring someone in there who is not tainted by the allegations, the concerns, the fraud that took place...?" Indeed. With a little tweak you could inscribe his words over the Pentagon doors: "Why are we arguing over Donald Rumsfeld? Why doesn't he step back, bring someone in there who is not tainted by the torture, the lies, the intelligence failures that took place...?" |
I don't know about you, but whatever Kofi Annan may or may not have done, just somehow pales in comparison to Dubya and Rummy, WHO ORDERED TORTURE. Did anything bad Kofi Annan ever did, even come within ten MILES of that???
'Bina.
You got it Bina....
'Doc
'Doc
Speaking of JBS and the UN, why are the wackattacks so down on the UN in general? Does it have to do with the idea that there might be some rational, intellegent people out there who just dont happen to be Americans? 
They seem to think the UN will come after them with black helicopters, forcing them to conform and stop hating and murdering anything that isn't white and pseudo-Christian, or some such.
'Bina.
'Bina.
| QUOTE (BinaBecker @ Thursday, 9 December 2004, 7:15 pm) |
| They seem to think the UN will come after them with black helicopters, forcing them to conform and stop hating and murdering anything that isn't white and pseudo-Christian, or some such. 'Bina. |
I'd be more worried about our own governement coming after us in black helecopters...oh well that's just me....
'Doc
Yeah, Doc, and it's a more likely scenario, too. But don't let the full-auto fools con you into thinking that any of what they advocate will be of use against them; one man with a grenade launcher is still no match for a whole squadron of the fuckers.
'Bina.
'Bina.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.