As IF Times

link Kofi Annan’s Legacy Threatened by Syria’s Violence – NYTimes.com.

I’m sure most people in the world didn’t even know that Kofi Annan had a legacy to preserve.  They may vaguely recognize the name as the figurehead secretary general of the U.N. for a number of years.  The article quotes colleagues in describing his main attributes, “…an engaging personality, ability to convey empathy and a forceful advocate of basic human rights…”  In addition, supporters say,

“…He’s a very experienced diplomat and he’s very good at getting on with people,” Mr. Mortimer said in a telephone interview. “He’s somebody who’s difficult to have a row with. He actually had a paperweight on his desk with the slogan: ‘Diplomacy is the art of letting the other guy have it your way… ”

There’s nothing in the promo that says anything about success.  The characteristics used to describe Mr. Annan can as easily be attributed to Mr. Rogers, my 4th grade teacher Miss Klassen or the gal at the Burger King down the street.  I don’t know who is responsible for embellishing the legacy of Mr. Annan, but any pretensions that he has one at all, much less one to be proud of, is pure revisionist fantasy.  A very quick look at the website, www.warsintheworld.com will show that currently, there are dozens if not multiple dozens of armed conflicts with their attendant human rights transgressions going on in the world right now.  (It’s amusing enough that someone keeps track of this stuff).  The record of the U.N.’s success at enforcing human rights worldwide is dubious at best.

So, which part of Annan’s legacy is in danger?   Sure he’s had an improbable climb to his exalted position, from humble beginnings as a tour guide to defender of human rights for the world.   I guess he was the right guy for the job.  We’ll agree that when trying to intervene during armed conflicts, we do need a calming voice to exhort ‘both sides to show restraint’, even when the conflict is laughingly lopsided.  Such is presently the case in Syria now when government forces are cavalierly executing and torturing their own citizens.  The victims have to show some restraint from bleeding and dying  if the conflict can be resolved peacefully.   Or in the case of many African tribal wars, where victims have to be more considerate by not having limbs chopped off.

No rational person can blame Annan,  or the U.N. for that matter,  for their inability to stop wars.  Warfare at some level is part of the human condition from the first time someone figured out how to swing a stick.   But let’s not pretend that Annan, like his successor Ban Ki Moon are anything but bureaucrats who are installed for political reasons to convey some sense of moral authority to the U.N.  They may not actually do anything, but at least they express moral outrage.  Sort of like Gary Bettman.  People such as Annan, Ban Ki Moon  and most all bureaucrats are fortunate that the pay regime at the U.N. is based on effort and not on real results as in most legitimate organizations.  If it was based on results, he’d have been better off in the tour guide business.

link U.N. chief warns of humanitarian disaster as Libya meeting opens – CNN.com.

To whom is this guy addressing his warning?  Banned From The Moon is essentially pleading for more money (what else?) to head off an ‘humanitarian disaster’ in Libya.   Since the U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N., it logically means, he’s asking that Americans pony up more dough.  China and Russia are already helping by graciously agreeing to buy Libya’s oil.  The U.S., through NATO are only contributing bombs and bullets.

Someone may want to give the earnest head of the U.N. a map of the region.  He will note that immediately to the north and east of Libya are found the most moneyed states in the world today.  He may want to pass the collection plate around their tables.  While the U.S. has always come to the table in the past for almost any cause,  at the moment, their credit card balance is a bit high.  It can’t be that hard for some of the neighboring Arab states to toss a few hundred million into the aid pot to help a neighbour.    The Arab nations in the middle east have always existed on very fine balance.  Running most of the wealthy states are autocratic families who receive most of the oil wealth with the support of western countries and in return, support those western countries in order to keep hostile religious factions at bay.  Over the past half year, the yawning chasm of wealth between these rulers and their restive subjects has boiled over into mob insurrection.  Tunisia and Egypt were the first to go. 

If anyone can figure out which side of the combatants in Libya are worthy of support, it would be the immediate neighbors, since they’ll have to live with them later on.   It doesn’t really matter which side the Americans take, it will be the wrong side from someone’s perspective.  Factions and tribes have been battling each other over there for centuries and grudges and animosities persist.  It’s somewhat similar to 14 year old girls who are united against little Suzy, until she’s out of the picture and then they go back to hating each other.   There is the old Arab saying, ” the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.     Better off not giving anything, just stick with the artillery. 

There are humanitarian emergencies all over the world at any given time.  The calamity in Japan recently is a genuine emergency with no political root to the devastation.  Everyone was just minding their own business, when kaboom, the ground shook and the waves came.  If anyone deserves donations, it’s the Japanese.  They are living in peace.  They are contributing to the world.  The only jihad they spread is by technology advances and karaoke.  It makes more sense to help peaceful people than people who would behead you in your sleep.   The humanitarian crisis being warned of is man made.  Who’s to say there isn’t another one after this one?  I’d say they had better keep the collection plate in circulation.