John Shattuck, Nancy Soderberg, Iqbal Riza, Gillian Sorensen, and James Traub gathered recently at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library to lavish praise on Kofi Annan, and heap scorn upon John Bolton.
In order to fully understand how misguided some people are, one must sometimes put one’s head inside the lion’s mouth. The lion might not have any teeth but the foul odor emanating from its breath is sufficient to want to cleanse oneself of the experience.
I met such a foul odor a few days ago when I attended a panel discussion on the future of the United Nations at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. The theme of the discussion was, “The UN in the Era of American Power.” A more truthful advertisement would have been “UN Love-In: A Tribute to Kofi Annan.” The level of adoration and idolatry poured onto the former UN Secretary General would have made Kim Jong-Il blush. It could have also been advertised, “John Bolton is a Bad, Bad Man.”
You know it’s going to be a long afternoon when John Shattuck, CEO of the JFK Library Foundation and former U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic during the Clinton Administration, states with all the subtlety of a ballpein hammer that JFK was “fascinated by the UN unlike some of his successors.” Following his preemptive perfunctory remarks, Shattuck showed a short clip of JFK speaking before the UN General Assembly on September 25, 1961, just days after the death of Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold:
The problem is not the death of one man – the problem is the life of this organization. It will either grow to meet the challenges of our age, or it will be gone with the wind, without influence, without force, without respect. Were we to let it die, to enfeeble its vigor, to cripple its powers, we would condemn our future.
Yet one wonders if he were still alive how JFK would have reacted to a Human Rights Council that featured Cuba. While that might have bothered the 35th President I doubt any of the panelists would have lost sleep over it.
Those who watch The O’Reilly Factor might be familiar with the moderator of this event, Nancy Soderberg, whose condescending tone with O’Reilly conveys an impression of someone with a disposition about as pleasant as a jar of dill pickles. Soderberg, who served on the U.S. delegation to the UN as well as on the National Security Council during the Clinton Administration, declared that she is “an enormous fan of the UN who wants to see it succeed.” She certainly doesn’t feel that way about the United States, as demonstrated during her appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in March 2005. This was at a time when there was a flicker of optimism in the Middle East. Things were looking better in Iraq after the parliamentary elections. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon had begun to sprout, and would uproot the Lebanese from the weeds of Syrian occupation. When Stewart commented on these developments Soderberg replied, “Well, there’s still Iran and North Korea, don’t forget. There’s still hope for the rest of us . . . There’s always hope that this might not work.” If there is a UN First tendency in this country Soderberg would be leading the charge.
No tribute to Kofi Annan would be complete without Iqbal Riza, who served as Annan’s Number Two for most of his two terms as Secretary General. Riza was also Annan’s Number Two at the Department of Peacekeeping Operations from 1993 to 1996. This, of course, was the period where 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutus in Rwanda, which the UN did nothing to prevent. Riza is infamous for his assessment of the Rwandan massacre. “Look, since the 1960s, there have been cycles of violence – Tutsis against Hutus, Hutus against Tutsis. I’m sorry to put it so cynically,” Riza told the PBS program Frontline.
Believe it or not, Riza actually managed to top himself during the panel discussion when he boasted that the Iraq Oil for Food program had “fed millions of Iraqis.” So what if there was nearly $2 billion in illicit payoffs and kickbacks. Talk about chutzpah. This is precious coming from a man who was cited by the Volcker Committee for shredding documents that might have been pertinent to their investigation. Indeed, Riza authorized the destruction of three years worth of files the day after the UN Security Council passed a resolution in support of the Volcker Committee’s inquiry. In the Volcker Committee’s Second Interim Report, it concluded that Riza “acted imprudently” and in contravention of his own directives concerning the preservation of documents relating to the Oil for Food Program. Riza, of course, challenged these findings. However, the Third Interim Report, while stating Riza did not intend to obstruct the inquiry, upheld thee previous findings.
Gillian Sorensen also served as an adviser to Annan as well as his predecessor, Boutros Boutros Ghali. When Ted Turner donated a billion dollars to the UN in 1998 the UN Foundation was established. Sorensen currently serves as the UN Foundation’s Senior Adviser. Not surprisingly, Sorensen sang Annan’s praises as the panel’s backup female vocalist. She praised his efforts concerning the Millennium Development Goal, the Global AIDS Initiative, peacekeeping, human rights, literacy, elections, the status of women and children, disaster relief and UN reforms. Sorensen argued that Annan’s “moral authority and stature” made the UN indispensable. “Every political issue has the UN as part of the solution,” she said.
Also unsurprisingly, Sorensen spoke of the United States with a contemptuous condescension. She said the United States needed to “convey a sense of respect to the rest of the world and act in a way that inspires trust, respect and credibility.” Quoting former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright she quipped, “Even a superpower need friends.” But then in the next breath Sorensen suggested the United States was married to the UN whether it liked it or not, declaring that “divorce was not an option.”
Her most bizarre observation concerned the United States not seeking a seat on the newly established Human Rights Council. Sorensen claimed that because of the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the death penalty in the American criminal justice system, the United States could not have gained the simple majority necessary from the UN General Assembly to earn a seat on the Human Rights Council even if it had chose to do so. “What would have Eleanor Roosevelt thought?,” Sorensen self-righteously pondered. Well, given that FDR interned 120,000 Japanese Americans during the Second World War and the death penalty was on the books in the United States during her lifetime I somehow find it hard to believe that she would have objected to much of anything the United States has done. In fairness, Soderberg challenged Sorensen’s comment and argued that most of the General Assembly wants the United States to sit on the Human Rights Council so as to give it legitimacy.
The most candid member of the panel was New York Times Magazine writer James Traub. In November 2006, Traub release his biography of Kofi Annan, The Best Intentions: Kofi Annan and the UN in the Era of American Power. Traub ceded the panel did not run the full spectrum of opinion on the UN. He offered that the panel “runs the gamut from A to D, with me being D.” Traub was the only panelist to acknowledge that the United States is what it is and that the United States “would never be Denmark.” He observed that the UN is a “club of states” engaged in the “calculus of self-interest.” Traub further acknowledged Israel often gets the short end of the stick where it concerns the UN, citing the Human Rights Council as an example. The way he put it was that other nations do not see Israel as Israel sees itself, and consequently Israel is supported only by the United States and sometimes Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. (Unfortunately, the Micronesia and Marshall Islands reference became something of a running joke among the panelists.) However, Traub also ceded that the nature of the institution had its limitations and offered that seeking out alternative international institutions could be useful.
However, what Traub would not do in any way was criticize Annan. Any institutional shortcomings were the fault of the General Assembly, a UN body or a specific member state, namely the United States. In Traub’s eyes and that of the panel, the Secretary General is merely a servant of the General Assembly. While there is certainly some truth to that, it was disingenuous for Traub and the others to argue that Annan made the UN matter again, and tout his Nobel Peace Prize and on the other hand argue that he had no responsibility for the the conduct of UN Peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Since Traub had brought up Israel vis a vis the Human Rights Council, I decided to ask him and the other panelists about the recently released report of John Dugard, the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian Territories. In the report, Dugard compares Israel to apartheid South Africa, and criticizes Israel for withholding funds from the Hamas-led government, despite the fact that Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction. Dugard also described Israel’s security barrier as “an instrument of social engineering designed to achieve the Judaization of Jerusalem.”
Heaven forbid that Jews should be allowed to live in Jerusalem; never mind that they be able to live without the fear of being blown up on a bus.
I asked why American tax dollars should be utilized to subsidize internationally sanctioned defamation and anti-Semitism. Traub seemed overtly irritated by my question. This was no doubt abated by hisses and snickers I heard after posing it. It was also the second question that was raised about Israel during the forum. Although Traub admitted he had not read the report he did not believe that Dugard meant to say that Jews shouldn’t be allowed in Jerusalem. However, the highly respected UN expert Anne Bayefsky begs to differ in an article that can be found in the February 23, 2007 edition of www.nationalreview.com. (I should further note that several of my articles on the UN have been reprinted on Bayefsky’s website). Still exasperated he asked, “Why is it that this single issue is make or break for our support of the UN? Your tax dollars fund other UN activities such as fighting AIDS, peacekeeping and disaster relief.”
Israel is just one of the many issues where the UN has demonstrated itself to be completely ineffectual and useless. With regard to AIDS prevention, the UN has been criticized by an unlikely source – Stephen Lewis, Canada’s former Ambassador to the United Nations and one time special envoy for AIDS in Africa. Lewis, who was also the former leader of the Ontario NDP in the 1970’s, criticized the International Narcotics Control Board for failing to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa. “If I had it in my grasp I would take them out behind the international woodshed and give them an intellectual and rhetorical flogging, the likes of which they would never forget,” Lewis said.
If Traub wants to bring up peacekeeping then I will bring up the Democratic Republic of Congo. Most Americans frown on 11-year-old girls being raped by UN peacekeepers. UN apologists are quick to pounce on alleged American abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo but are silent concerning the exploitation of children at the hands of so-called UN peacekeepers. If Traub brings up disaster relief then I will bring up the fact the UN is wasting money intended for victims of the 2004 Tsunami. In an investigation by the Financial Times, nearly a third of the first $1 billion collected by the UN “was being swallowed up by salaries and administrative overhead.” Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation points out that Oxfam expended only 10% of funds raised for tsunami aid on administrative costs. Simply put, those who want to help those in need are better off donating their money to private charities rather than the UN.
Yes, there are hundreds of reasons to oppose continued U.S. involvement in the UN. Yet the UN vilification of Israel in Dugard’s report is hardly an isolated incident. For the international community and supporters of the UN to turn a blind eye towards the egregious treatment of Israel demonstrates that they are part of the problem.
Interestingly, Riza made a point of stating that if it was only the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) which was criticizing Israel, they could be easily dismissed. But the fact that the EU, NATO and non-NATO members alike opposed Israel in the UN rendered Israel near “total isolation.” In other words, Israel’s fate rests on France. Never mind that Riza ignores centuries of European anti-Semitism. Never mind that Riza ignores the upsurge of anti-Semitism in present day Europe, much of it carried out by Muslims, both immigrant and European-born. Never mind that European governments have not taken adequate steps to prevent attacks on its Jewish populace. As far as Riza is concerned, since Europe believes Israel is wrong therefore it is wrong as if Europe was without a political agenda of its own.
If this panel discussion could be described a love-in towards Kofi Annan and the UN it could be equally described as the equivalent of the two-minute hate towards the Bush Administration, particularly former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.
Traub openly bragged that he was the one who was responsible for Bolton not receiving Senate confirmation to the post late last year. Sorensen, while acknowledging his intelligence, said Bolton was “utterly unsuited to the assignment” and described his disposition as “arrogant and abrasive.” She added that Bolton did “a great deal of damage” to the UN. Riza simply said that Bolton was “irredeemable.” Yet Soderberg topped them all. She pointed out that dinner invitations were fairly commonplace between UN delegations but noted that Bolton had not received one invitation. The UN-loving audience ate it up like ice cream.
Of course, Soderberg did not explain how not being invited to a posh dinner at taxpayer’s expense precludes one from being a good UN Ambassador. Yet Soderberg’s anecdote was emblematic of the panel’s elitism. It illustrates Traub’s point that the UN is a “club of nations” that often acts according to mores acceptable at a junior high school. All of the panelists expressed their contempt for Bolton but none could provide a specific example of policy on which they disagreed apart from what they alleged to be attributes of his personality. In the absence of coherent objections they simply chose to attack him in an ad hominem manner. This simply does not inspire my confidence nor that of a majority of Americans.
Should the Democrats win the White House in 2008 there is a good chance one or more of these panelists might represent the United States at the UN. They might very well improve the standing of the United States at the UN. But they will not improve the standing of the UN in the United States.
aargold24@hotmail.com
http://www.poetsforthewar.org
Read more articles by Aaron Goldstein
You are of course correct. It's time this undemocratic monolith was replaced by a genuine global parliament of elected representatives. The time of appointed elites has passed.
Comment by brian | March 1, 2007