Kofi or Not

In the past week there have been a number of calls for Kofi Annan to resign, or be removed from his position, due to his presiding over the Oil-for-Food scam. As would be expected, the calls for his head have come almost entirely from the US, while Europeans and others have written letters of support. Glenn Reynolds has proposed that Vaclav Havel be named to replace Annan in order to restore some legitimacy to the UN. But as Jeff Jacoby sees it, it is irrelevant whether or not Annan resign.

Annan is merely a symptom of the UN's sickness, not the cause of it. His resignation would do nothing to reform the UN into the engine of peace and liberty its founders envisioned. Better that Annan remain in place as a symbol of UN fecklessness and failure, and a spur to those who can envision something better.

The UN is a corrupt institution, one that long ago squandered whatever moral legitimacy it once had. The UN's founding documents venerate justice and human rights, but for the past 40 years, the organization has been dominated by a bloc of states -- essentially the Afro-Asian Third World -- most of whose governments routinely pervert justice and violate human rights.

While it would be great to see Annan humiliated by a forced resignation, I think that it might accomplish the opposite of what it would be intended to do. If Annan resigns, and someone like Havel is put in his place, then without doing anything the UN will regain some measure of legitimacy and respect. Much better to keep Annan in place as a reminder of what a cesspool of corruption and immorality the UN has become. Maybe then the democracies of the world would form their own organization and consign the UN to the ashheap of history where it belongs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look within yourself young Jedi
(a follow up from Elder of Zion #6)

It is human nature to look out for one's own interests. There are those among us who hold a wonderful vision of the member states of the United Nations, evolving to the point where they put the personal interests of their individual regimes aside for the common good of the world body as a whole. However, not unlike the failings of other well meaning concepts such as socialism, the shortcomings of human nature eventually prevail. As much as I sincerely abhor the actions of many at the UN, I understand them. In many cases they are simplistically self-serving. What I don’t understand is the legitimacy and support bestowed upon them by so many, including our own government. My disappointment in the continued passive acceptance of that organization far exceeds that of their actions. The Kofi’s of the world will come and go… the more important change that has to take place is… within us.

Sad, But Probably True

Ha'aretz quotes the former Chief Rabbi of Israel: European Jewry Coming to an End

"I see the end of the Diaspora of Jews in Europe," Lau said. "I call on the government to prepare for a new phase in the spiritual and physical absorption of European Jewry before they consider emigrating to the United States or Australia," Lau said.

Memory

Another great article by Victor Hanson about how easily we forget even the near past. Looking back at Afghanistan, everything looks great; but long forgotten is all the noise made by the opponents of even that invasion about cold and refugees and Ramadan and the impossibility of victory there.

There may well be even more terrible things to come in Iraq than what we have seen already, but there will also be far better things than were there before. And there will come a time, when all those who slandered the efforts — the Germans, the French, the American radical Left, the vicious Michael "Minutemen" Moore, the pampered and coddled Hollywood elite, the Arab League, and the U.N. will assume that Iraq is a "good thing" like Afghanistan, and that democracy there really was preferable — after they had so bravely weighed in with their requisite "ifs" and "buts" — to the mass murders of Saddam Hussein. Yes, they will say all this, but it will be for the rest of us to remember how it all came about and what those forgotten soldiers and people of Iraq went through to get it — lest we forget, lest we forget....

Does He Realize What He is Saying?

Reuters carries a report on Vladimir Putin's speech in India which is a stunning example of what psychologists would call projection.

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the United States on Friday of pursuing a dictatorial foreign policy and said mounting violence could derail progress toward bringing peace and democracy to Iraq.

"Dictatorial foreign policy"??? He has got to be kidding. And wasn't he one of the ones who was opposed to "bringing peace and democracy to Iraq" and instead wanted to keep Saddam in place?

Putin also criticized the West for setting double-standards on terrorism, pursuing Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Iraq while giving refuge to "terrorists" demanding Chechnya's independence from Russia.

I seem to recall Russia scolding Israel for killing Hamas leaders and other terrorists, and criticizing Israel's invasion of Jenin while reducing Grozny to ash. Of course there are no double standards there.

And finally this most ironic line.

"Even if dictatorship is packaged in beautiful pseudo-democratic phraseology, it will not be able to solve systemic problems," Putin said. "It may even make them worse."

A perfect description of Putin's rule.

___________________________________________________________________

Elder thoughts... with one foot in grave and another on Putin
(By Elder of Zion #6)

As I read the above post from my flue ridden death bed, and I started to ponder my own feelings of our Russian friend and the memory of a life long since past the following song came to mind.

"We see them after school in a world of their own.
To some it may seem creepy what they do.
The neighbors on the right sat and watched them every night.
I bet you’d do the same if it was you.
Wizzing and pasting and Putin through the day.
Ronny helping Kenny
helping burn his boots away."

Sometimes one must grasp for the lyrics of the great Frank Zappa when in
search of clarity. I think that just about says it all. Either that or I am
still delirious with flue. Mom… send soup.

Democracy

In the last week or so amazing things have been happening in the Ukraine. I didn't write about it simply because I don't know very much about the specifics. What makes these demonstrations so significant is their proximity to Russia, and the possible influence it could have on future elections there. Both John Podhoretz and Charles Krauthammer make similar arguments regarding these events. Podhoretz believes that this demand for true democratic election is a result of The Law of Unintended Consequences.

A strong argument can be made that America's conduct over the past three years in fighting the War on Terror against Islamic extremists has borne surprising fruit in the glorious and thrilling display of liberty in the streets of Kiev.

Millions of Ukrainians are creating an entirely new kind of democratic revolution: They've simply refused to let their election be stolen by a government run by a kleptocratic mafia, and they've taken to the streets of the capital. As their peaceful, high-spirited, optimistic and profoundly moving protest has grown over the past weeks, it has taken an amazing turn.

By pushing for democracy in the Islamic world the US has, in effect, given support for it everywhere.

Krauthammer, on the other hand, exposes the hypocrisy of the Europeans (and their US supporters) in lauding and supporting democracy in Ukraine, while denying its possibility in other places.

Thus Zbigniew Brzezinski, a fierce opponent of the Bush administration's democracy project in Iraq, writes passionately about the importance of democracy in Ukraine and how, by example, it might have a domino effect, spreading democracy to neighboring Russia. Yet when George Bush and Tony Blair make a similar argument about the salutary effect of establishing a democracy in the Middle East -- and we might indeed have the first truly free election in the Middle East within two months if we persevere -- "realist" critics dismiss it as terminally naive.

If you had said 20 years ago that Ukraine would today be on the threshold of joining a democratic Europe, you, too, would have been called a hopeless utopian. Yes, Iraq has no democratic tradition and deep ethnic divisions. But Ukrainian democracy is all of 13 years old, much of it dominated by a corrupt, authoritarian regime with close ties to an even more corrupt and authoritarian Russia. And with a civilizational split right down the middle, Ukraine has profound, and potentially catastrophic, divisions.

So let us all join hands in praise of the young people braving the cold in the streets of Kiev. But then tell me why there is such silence about the Iraqis, young and old, braving bullets and bombs, organizing electorate lists and negotiating coalitions even as we speak. Where is it written: Only in Ukraine?

The Death of the Left

Michael Ledeen has a good article about the death of the Left, and how this is visible in their actions during the election campaign, and after Bush's re-election.

When their ideas were in vogue, leftist advocates took electoral defeat in stride, as they were confident that their vision was far more popular - because far more accurate - than their opponents' view of the world. History and logic were on their side. But no more. Incoherent rage and unbridled personal attacks on the winners are sure signs of a failed vision.

Ironically, the Left's view of history provides us with part of the explanation for its death. Marx and Hegel both understood that the world constantly changes, and ideas change along with it. The world they knew - and successfully transformed - was a class-bound society dominated by royalty and aristocracy. They hurled themselves into class struggle, believing it to be the engine of human history, and they fought for liberty for all. Successive generations of leftists preached and organized democratic revolution at home and abroad, from the overthrow of tyrants to the abolition of class privileges and the redistribution of both political power and material wealth.

In true dialectical fashion, they were doomed by their own success...

Causes

The conventional wisdom regarding the Middle East has for a long time been that the US is hated in the Arab world because of its support for Israel, and if the Palestinian-Israeli conflict could be settled, everything would get better. Amir Taheri confronts this conventional wisdom about the anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments of the Arab world by reversing the cause and effect.

Conventional wisdom also insists that the US is hated by Muslims because it is pro-Israel. That view is shared by most American officials posted to the Arab capitals. But is it not possible that the reverse is true – that Israel is hated because it is pro-American?

I think that in part he is right in this assertion - one need only to look at Iran's view of the US as "The Great Satan" and Israel as the "Little Satan" as confirmation. However, one needs to look at the different parts of the Arab world. For the part that is secular, Israel is seen as an outpost of America in their neighborhood. Their hatred of Israel clearly has to do with Israel's support of the US. But in the fundamentalist part, US or not Israel is an intruder - an occupier of holy Muslim land. It would not matter who was supporting Israel or whom Israel was supporting, the issue would be the same - Israel's very existence.

The Problem With Voluntary Compliance

The New York Times, in this story, illustrates the main problem with the current non-proliferation scheme in the form of the IAEA.

International inspectors are requesting access to two secret Iranian military sites where intelligence suggests that Tehran's Ministry of Defense may be working on atomic weapons, despite the agreement that Iran reached this week to suspend its production of enriched uranium, according to diplomats here.
[...]
Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., said in an interview here on Wednesday that he had repeatedly asked Iran for access to the two sites, but that it had not yet been granted.

The whole basis of IAEA inspections relies on the honesty and good faith of the countries which the IAEA is inspecting. Iran has been cheating for almost 20 years, yet the EU-3 makes agreements with them ignoring this record. Since the military sites where Iran is doing nuclear "research" are not subject to inspections, a country that chooses to develop weapons can easily get around the whole inspection and non-proliferation regime.

International arms control is, in some ways, very similar to gun control. In both cases the goal is to limit the access to weapons to those whom society considers dangerous. So for the law abiding, there are restrictions. Yet for those who choose to flout the law - the very ones the laws are made to constrain - these restrictions are meaningless.

Bush's Resolve

Since the death of Arafat there has been lots of talk about how to proceed with the "peace process". There was a lot of question about how Bush would act and whether he would succumb to pressure from Europe and the UN to force Israel into concessions. On November 11th I wrote that I was "hopeful, but not entirely optimistic" about Bush being able to resist such pressure. In the past few weeks I have grown much more optimistic.

In his appointment of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State and Stephen Hadley as National Security Adviser, Bush has advanced two people who are very sympathetic to Israel and who believe that we can not return to the failed policies of Oslo and Clinton/Barak. Maybe even more importantly, Bush's vision of how to proceed has been guided by his general belief that the key to a stable and peaceful Middle East is democracy, not concessions. His words in today's speech in Canada confirm this.

Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of pressuring one side or the other on the shape of a border or the site of a settlement. This approach has been tried before without success.

As we negotiate the details of peace, we must look at the heart of the matter, which is the need for a Palestinian democracy. The Palestinian people need a peaceful government that truly serves their interests. And the Israeli people need a true partner in peace.

Unlike his predecessors (or his opponent in the last election), Bush has an ideology and is willing to stand up for it. His steadfastness in the pursuit of these goals could actually produce dramatic and long lasting results in the Middle East.

Anti-Semitism and the UN

Anne Bayefsky has a great article about the anti-Semitism of the UN.

The record is incontrovertible: double-standards applied only to Israel; the lack of interest in states with much worse human-rights records; and the resulting demonization of Israel through overt manipulation of human-rights rhetoric and mechanisms. Even the underlying anti-Semitism becomes plain with the overt attempt to eliminate concern with anti-Semitism.

Palestinian Elections

Since the death of Arafat, there have been increasing calls for a renewed "peace process" between Israel and the Palestinians, especially after the Palestinians prove that they are democratic by holding elections. Barry Rubin analyzes the future elections and the prospects for peace.

To begin with, the Palestinian elections will be proclaimed as a near-model exercise in democracy. Yet it is easy to see that Fatah bosses chose the sole candidate, and Fatah bodies then unanimously endorsed him. Other candidates were pressured to quit.

This election will be like those regularly held in Arab dictatorships, the establishment's man monopolizing media coverage and active regime backing. The sole difference: a few minor candidates can run.

On election day Abu Mazen will get 80 percent of the vote or more, and observers will say the balloting was free and fair.

But what happens at the ballot box means nothing for the power struggle among dozens of warlord-type contenders and the two main factions.

The main issue is the fact that even with Arafat's death, the leadership of the Palestinians remains basically the same. Yoram Ettinger demonstrates how the present leadership, which is talked about as "moderate" and "open to peace", has been involved with some of the defining terrorist acts, and how they are still intimately linked to Hamas.

In 1972, Abu Mazen handled the financial aspects of the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre of 11 Israeli athletes. He steered pre-1989 PLO ties with ruthless East European regimes and the Soviet Union, wrote a thesis on Holocaust Denial at Moscow University, co-managed PLO hijacking of Western planes during the early 1970s and the murder of U.S. ambassadors in 1972.

A few days following the signing of the 1993 Oslo accord, Abu Mazen, Abu Ala' Dahlan and Rajoub engineered a series of PA-Hamas understandings.

So no matter what the cosmetic changes that the "new" PA makes, the core remains the same. The goal of the Palestinians continues to be the destruction of Israel, not a state beside Israel. This is the root of the problem, and until it is openly acknowledged and remedied - and the Palestinians are disabused of the notion that they can achieve their goals - there will not be peace.

Legitimizing top leaders of the PA, such as Abu Mazen, Abu Ala', Dahlan and Rajoub - in defiance of their horrific track records - constitutes a victory of wishful thinking over moral clarity. The suggestion that the four are moderate compared with Mr. Arafat, is to suggest that the Boston Strangler was moderate compared with Jack the Ripper. It sends a devastating message to terrorists: Not only can you get away with murder, but you shall be rewarded. It energizes global terrorism, deters moderation, precludes free Palestinian elections and undermines the cause of peace. In 1993, wishful thinking smothered Israeli and Western policy-makers. It provided Mr. Arafat with unprecedented legitimacy, triggering unprecedented terrorism. How many innocent lives will be sacrificed on the altar of Abu Mazen and Abu Ala'?

Nuke Freeze?

Iran continues to prove that it has absolutely no intention of freezing its nuclear program, despite the new agreements with the EU-3. Just a week after agreeing to freeze their program - and then the next day trying to exclude part of the program from the freeze - they have stated that they plan to restart enrichment activities again soon. It should be clear to everyone that Iran will not stop until they acquire nuclear weapons, no matter what agreements they make. At this point, I don't think that even the EU-3 believe that Iran will stop. Michael Ledeen defined this behavior for what it really is - appeasement. He believes there are two main reasons for this:

They have huge financial interests tied up with the Iranian regime (billions of dollars worth of oil and gas contracts, plus other trade agreements, some already signed, others in the works); and Iran is the last place in the Middle East where they can play an active diplomatic role. This is particularly acute for France, which knows it will long be a pariah to free Iraqi governments, and views Iran as its last chance to thwart America's dominant role in the region. Sad to say, there is no evidence that the Europeans give a tinker's damn either about the destiny of the Iranian people, or about Iran's leading role in international terrorism, or about the Islamic Republic's joining the nuclear club. They are quite prepared to live with all that.

At the same time, they hope that Israel will do something about it; and then, of course, they can once again condemn Israel.

When they whisper that thought to themselves in the privacy of their own offices or the darkness of their own bedrooms, they mentally replay the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq, in 1981, an attack they publicly condemned and privately extolled. They would do the same tomorrow, sighing in relief as they tighten the noose around Israel's neck. Rarely has the metaphor of the scapegoat been so appropriate: the burden of our sins of omission loaded onto the Israelis, who are then sacrificed to atone for us all.

The only hope left is that the Bush Administration will do something about Iran. A confrontation is inevitable and as in every other confrontation Europe will be on the sidelines. For a group of countries that want to think of themselves as a superpower, they are all incredibly powerless and gutless. And once again its High Noon.

UN Out

The conservative organization Move America Forward has a new ad and petition to try to get the UN out of the US.(Video here).

Outrageous

As the anti-religion crusade of the Left has progressed, many on the right questioned where the deletion of God from public life would end; first nativity scenes, then the pledge of allegiance, and now the Declaration of Independence. Reuters reports:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.
[...]
Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

This is an attempt at the wholesale rewriting of US history. It is beyond argument that the Founders were deeply religious men and saw themselves doing the work of God (men are endowed with rights by God, not by other men) . To now attempt to suppress that is the disowning of our own history. Undoubtedly there will be a backlash against these attempts to completely remove God from public life.

And by the way, if the principal is so against God, is she also against US currency bearing the words "In God We Trust"?

Our Metaphors

Victor Hanson examines the metaphors that have been used to describe the Iraq War, and what they really say about ourselves.

In short, far from "there is no military solution," the truth in Iraq is rather that there is no political solution without a military victory and humiliation of the terrorists.

Why do we readily embrace such false wisdom? Reasons abound, from our own lack of confidence in American competence and morality to the creepy methods of the Islamic fascists that strike fear into a leisured and prosperous Western citizenry. But for now it is enough to realize that retail metaphors, stale Vietnam-era myths, and pessimism passed off as chemistry tell us far more about ourselves than they do of Iraq — which somehow, like Afghanistan, just zigs and zags forward toward a democratic future.

Finally Getting It?

According to Tony Blankley, Europe (as well as NPR in the US) may finally be waking up from its slumber to the realization that radical Islam is a threat to them, and not just to the US. The event that finally cased this epiphany seems to have been the slaughter of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker (apparently the murder of almost 200 people on trains in Spain did not cause this realization).

From Holland's leading newspaper, the Telegraaf, to Germany's liberal Berliner Zeitung and Der Spiegel (roughly, the European equivalents of the The New York Times, The Washington Post and Time Magazine) has come the same heated prose that could be found in the United States in the aftermath of September 11. And here in the United States, even the liberal National Public Radio Network's "All Things Considered" is beginning to seriously report European volkish fury the way they usually report breathlessly on the latest developments in Brazilian rainforest depletion.

Here in the US, Hollywood - that vociferous proponent of freedom of speech and freedom from intimidation - doesn't seem to have much to say about van Gogh's murder, criticism of Islam being out of vogue.

Unlike Hollywood, however, Europe can no longer ignore the Islamist threat. The problem is that unless something drastic is done, Europe is screwed. The main problem is simple demographics in conjunction with the cradle-to-grave socialism that the Europeans have built for themselves. At this point, birth rates in virtually all western European countries are below "replacement rate", ie the society is shrinking. Pretty much the only segment of society that does have a positive birth rate is the Muslim immigrants (currently the most popular name for newborn boys in Holland is Mohammed). So Europe is stuck - if they cut down on immigration, which is mostly from Muslim countries, they will not have enough workers to support the myriad of socialist programs. On the other hand, if this immigration continues at the present rate, and Muslims continue to not assimilate, Europe will become Muslim. The Muslim world will then have, at least partially, achieved their goal of reviving the Caliphate and at some point, the US will once again have to liberate Europe.

Palestinian Delusions

Just one more indication that the Palestinians will not have a state in the foreseeable future: Most Palestinians sure Arafat was poisoned. Palestinians, and Arabs in general, seem to constantly be blaming someone else for everything. There is a complete inability in that culture to take responsibility for one's actions - it is always someone else's fault. With that kind of attitude, is it really a surprise that the Arab world is one of the most backward, poorest places on earth?

CBS should be Rather embarrassed.

From today's NRO Frum diary...

What would the world be saying of Dan Rather if, say, he managed an
automobile manufacturer? Over his 24 years at the helm of CBS News, he has led
his program from first place to third, losing more than half his audience along
the way. Throughout his career he has been embroiled in controversy and scandal,
culminating in his broadcast of forged documents - and his insistence that they
might well be genuine long after the falsehood was obvious to everybody else. He
leaves his news program in worse editorial and economic shape than at any time
since it was launched five decades ago. If CBS were a car company, Rather would
be universally condemned as a business and moral failure, one who broke faith
with his colleagues, his customers, and his shareholders. Fortunately for
Rather, CBS is a media organization. So he will exit the scene hailed as an
American legend and a hero for our time.

I'm Shocked

Well, not exactly. Not even a week has gone by since Iran agreed with the EU-3 to halt all uranium enrichment activities, an already they want to change the agreement. When will Europe and the IAEA realize, or acknowledge, that Iran has no intention of honoring any agreements limiting its drive towards a nuclear weapon.

He’s a poet…and he didn’t even know it.

So the muse came to visit my friend Mike, but he was too drunk to answer the door. Instead he drank some more and wrote the following. No wisdom here... just drunken silliness.

One after one the screen sees their fall.
There's Daschle, there's Dan even Kofi Annan.
(He's not tipped quite yet, but he's snared in the net.)
With bribes and with lies and with doublespeak smiles,
they each threw all in,
they shot for the moon,
and now having failed, must sing the sad tune.
So sad for you, I'll miss y'all so much,
So On Dashle, on Rather,
and Theresa you vixen,
please take it to Europe,
where well you'll all fit in.
And there you can join all your movie star friends,
and discourse on the merits of Botox for rear ends.