Gay Patriot Header Image

“Terror Enablers” at the UN

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:56 pm - July 26, 2006.
Filed under: Liberals,War On Terror

Just over five months ago after United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan said that the U.S. should close down the detention facility for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, I wondered if he had “asked China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and other nations which incarcerate and torture political opponents to close down their detention facilities.” Although that post was linked by a number of blogs, not a single person wrote in with evidence that Kofi had asked any of these tyrannies to shut down prisons where there are actual documented cases of torture.

I did a variety of google searches to see if I could come up with any example of Kofi asking these tyrannies to shut down their prisons, focusing on Iran. I could not find any. Although Annan did ask Iran to release a political prisoner from Evin Prison, Annan did not ask the Islamicist regime to shut that notorious facility down. Unlike Guantanamo where the U.S. detains terrorist suspects, at Evin, Iran detains political prisoners whose crime is not taking up arms, but merely speaking out. The left-leaning Human Rights Watch found that “abuse and torture of dissidents have increased in Evin Prison’s solitary cells and secret detention centers.

Asking that the U.S. shut down Guantanamo while remaining silent about a far worse facility in Iran, Kofi Annan seems ever eager to attack the West for alleged human rights’ violations while remaining silent when tyrannies and terrorist organizations commit far worse atrocities. We saw this attitude again this week when Kofi Annan assumed the worst when Israeli fire hit a United Nations outpost near Khiyam in southern Lebanon. Almost immediately, Annan accused “Israeli Defense Forces” of “apparently deliberate targeting” of the post.

Perhaps had Mr. Annan insisted that UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) fulfill its mandate to “restore the international peace and security, and help the Lebanese Government restore its effective authority in the area,” the UN outpost might have escaped damage. For while the United Nations certified that Israel complied with its obligations to leave Lebanon in 2000, it did nothing to disband and disarm the militias operating there, as mandated by Security Council Resolution 1559.

It wasn’t just that the UN did nothing to disarm Hezbollah, that terrorist organization also took of the world body’s complaisance, launching rockets and setting up terror operations from spots close to UN outposts. Indeed, the Canadian soldier from the UN force who was killed by the Israeli strike had complained that:

Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were (sic) targeting them and that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.

(Via Captain’s Quarters.) It’s thus clear that Israel did not deliberately attack the outpost as the Secretary General suggested. The real question is that why the United Nations did nothing to prevent terrorists from setting up camp near their outposts — and using the cover of these outposts to launch attacks on the civilian population of a sovereign nation.

And this isn’t the first time UNIFIL sat idly by as terrorists attacked a member nation of the UN. When Hezbollah “showered northern Israel with rockets for three days in September 2004,” this UN force “didn’t act as a deterrent, nor did they do much to stop it.” Jed Babbin wrote that at one outpost along the Israel-Lebanon border “the U.N. and Hezbollah personnel share water and telephones, and that the U.N. presence serves as a shield against Israeli strikes against the terrorists.” Instead of acting to fulfill its own mandate, UNIFIL has instead has provided resources for a group the very United Nations has demanded be disarmed.

I wonder if those who attack the president by claiming he has not followed the laws of the United States have taken as strong a stand against Kofi Annan and UNIFIL for ignoring the very policies of their organization, the UN. It seems the bureaucrats there would rather design a world according to their own internationalist vision than pay attention to the resolutions of the Security Council, the only ones that the UN charter makes binding on all member nations of the UN.

Although he supposedly represents all those member nations, Kofi Annan more readily attacks the Western nations, particularly the U.S. and Israel, than non-Western ones. He asks us to close down the facility at Guantanamo Bay based on allegations, yet remains silent about Iran’s Evin Prison. He jumps to conclusions about an Israeli attack, yet says nothing about Hezbollah setting up shop near UNIFIL outposts, in direct violation of a that very organization’s mandate. He gives far more credit to a terrorist organization operating in direct violation of a Security Council Resolution than he does to a member nation of the UN.

No wonder one of my readers called the UN “terror enablers.”

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

ADDENDUM: I am grateful to this post on Michelle Malkin’s blog for reminding me of the Babbin piece (which I had read last week) and providing other important links. Please make sure to read the whole thing!

Share

25 Comments

  1. We are supposed to be a “beacon on a hill” and the representative nation upholding freedom and democracy. Kofi is right to ask us to stop the (well documented and proven) torture and close the institutions which propagate said torture, just as the American people and Congress have asked the President to do so. Are you REALLY arguing that Kofi had no right to ask us to stop torturing because he didn’t ask other nations to do the same? And how can you really say the UN has remained silent re: torture in Cuba, Iran, etc? They have a “Committee Against Torture” in OHCHR which repeatedly condemns torture in these nations. Your argument is spin and makes me extremely uncomfortable. You don’t condemn the torture yourself, instead you condemn the institution who asks for the torture to stop, meanwhile trying to transfer blame.

    Comment by Juan Penalosa — July 26, 2006 @ 10:39 pm - July 26, 2006

  2. And how can you really say the UN has remained silent re: torture in Cuba, Iran, etc? They have a “Committee Against Torture” in OHCHR which repeatedly condemns torture in these nations.

    And then gives them a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission.

    Then again, I have no doubt that Kofi gets kickbacks to ignore them, the same way that he got kickbacks to ignore Saddam.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 26, 2006 @ 11:34 pm - July 26, 2006

  3. #1 RE “Are you REALLY arguing that Kofi had no right to ask us to stop torturing because he didn’t ask other nations to do the same?”

    Yes, REALLY. I would also argue that he had no right to lament the plight of children in Iraq under Saddam while his employees pocketed boatloads of cash.

    Comment by BoBo — July 27, 2006 @ 12:44 am - July 27, 2006

  4. Juan, I might take seriously Kofi’s request that we close down Guantanamo if he had made a similar request that Iran close down Evin. And that’s one of the points of the post.

    Kofi’s job is not just to take issue with Western nations who have imperfect records, but enforce uniform standards across the world. Remember, he head the United Nations not an American organization.

    And, no, torture at Guantanamo has not been documented and proven.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 27, 2006 @ 3:09 am - July 27, 2006

  5. This is exactly why I have long argued that the UN is a totally useless instutition and a giant money suck of US taxpayer dollars.

    There isn’t anything the UN does well that a private organization couldn’t do better.

    But the UN has perfected keeping thugs and tyrants in power, they have perfected the art of kickbacks and bribes, they have perfected the art of child rape in Africa, they lend legitimacy to thugs and tyrants. They put known and routine human rights abusers on human rights commissions-which is sort of like letting the fox provide the security for the hen house.

    Comment by just me — July 27, 2006 @ 8:47 am - July 27, 2006

  6. just me — re: fox-henhouse.

    Or putting Bill Clinton in charge of White House intern orientation.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 27, 2006 @ 8:53 am - July 27, 2006

  7. # 5 This is exactly why I have long argued that the UN is a totally useless instutition and a giant money suck of US taxpayer dollars.

    Couldn’t agree with you more. The UN has become an enabler of terrorists and thug nations. Disband them now, or let them have their headquarters in the Sudan for instance. I would love to see Donald Trump build luxury apartments in Turtle Bay, much better use of the land, and think of the revenue NYC will get from property taxes.

    I remember when the situation got hot in Bagdad, the UN put their tail between their legs and ran away. (image of The Holy Grail comes to mind- run away! run away!)
    So what do they do in Lebanon? Make sure to leave all “unarmed” (they have arms, they simply aren’t “allowed” to use them) in place right next to where Hizballah is shooting off rockets.
    I find Kofi Anan to be no different from Nassrallah. Both of them are happy to have either civilian Lebanese casualties or dead UNFIL, because it makes Israel and by extension America look bad.

    Comment by Leah — July 27, 2006 @ 11:58 am - July 27, 2006

  8. I second the idea posited by someone else on this board (but on a different thread) to move the UN headquarters to Jerusalem. Then let’s see what this collective totalitarianist lapdog does when rockets start firing from north of the border (or east if it’s from Jordan).

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 27, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - July 27, 2006

  9. LOL….great point, Leah. Hizbollah set up right next to the UN outpost for the same reason they park missile launchers in civilian villages — human shields.

    And all the puppet leftists like Kofi can do is sit and fume, because their kickback money from Iran will be cut off if they interfere in the least with the operation of Iran’s puppets.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 27, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - July 27, 2006

  10. Are you among the voices that demand the US to put an end to torture or no? I’m still confused as to that. You are very clear in arguing that some people do and some don’t have the right to ask torture to stop?

    Torture is in violation of international law, much has been said regarding our role in torturing captives, Bush opposed congressional resolutions publicly calling for an end to torture and countless generals and military officials are stating publicly that torture is sanctioned by the US. Why do you have such a problem with any organization asking the US to put an end to torture?

    And what is your stance, because aside from the fact that you make a very clear argument that the UN is not allowed to ask for torture to end in the US, you don’t state whether or not you support the activity. Are you willing to add your voice to others (conservative and liberal alike) asking the administration to end torture?

    Comment by Juan Penalosa — July 27, 2006 @ 2:07 pm - July 27, 2006

  11. #1 Serious response. I reject the idea that there should be higher standards for the US… but it’s a nuanced rejection. To put it in personal terms… I should have very high standards for *myself*. But I object to being held to different standards by others. This is what the UN and other human rights organizations seem determined to do. Worse, the language of equivalency leads people to believe that there is, indeed, proven and documented torture at Guantanimo. There’s not. We’ve a pretty good idea that inmates are sometimes made uncomfortable, insulted, and interrogated.

    So the US, failing to live up to our “higher standards” our “beacon on the hill” are evil because of that.

    Meanwhile, in Kurdistan they’ve made a museum of the children’s prison run by Sadaam’s regime and Abu Ghraib, which contained a building so drenched in human blood that the US commander ordered it razed, is now a hospital. But *still* we’re the bad guys when it comes to human rights because children’s prisons and human slaughter-houses committed by tyrannical despots are EQUIVALENT to insulting a prisoner’s religious sensibilities with an Israeli flag and fake menstral blood.

    Because the US is held to a higher standard.

    It’s time for Americans to get some back bone and say that we just won’t take it anymore. Before offering to help us with the speck in our eye Koffi and the UN should remove the 2 by 12 by 16 foot chunk of lumber from their own.

    Comment by Synova — July 27, 2006 @ 2:08 pm - July 27, 2006

  12. Juan, I want an end to torture, yes. And no, I did not say the UN should not be allowed to ask for torture to end, but that I don’t take Kofi Annan seriously since he asks the US to close a facility where there have only been allegations of torture, but does not ask Iran to close one that is far worse, far, far, far worse.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 27, 2006 @ 4:02 pm - July 27, 2006

  13. Syrana, what??? “We have a pretty good idea that prisoners are made uncomfortable?” If by uncomfortable you mean… beat to the point of death, sodomized and denied food, water and sleep, then yeah, you’re right we have a pretty good idea that it’s true. Andrew Sullivan has posted gobs on this and check out thememoryhole.org for photographic evidence. We are not “evil” because we don’t live up to our “beacon on a hill status” (which by the way we should but don’t), we are “evil” because our government allows torture and because our President refuses to stand against the torture and continues to sanction it as is evident by his postscript added to McCain’s Anti-Torture bill.

    I continue to argue that this post is simply deferring the blame and spinning the issue. By attacking the UN as opposed to demanding an end to torture at the hand of Americans. I’ll agree Kofi should ask others to close down their institutions of terror. But, he has as much a right as every American, Congressman and International Organization to demand that Americans stop torturing detainees.

    Comment by Juan Penalosa — July 27, 2006 @ 5:51 pm - July 27, 2006

  14. Juan, Andrew Sullivan may have posted gobs on this, but Heather MacDonald has discredited most of his findings. Simply put, on “torture,” Andrew Sullivan is not a reliable source. And when officials acting under US authority have beaten prisoners, etc., the government has prosecuted them. It is not our policy to do such things.

    Even if the allegations of torture at Guantanamo were accurate, that still doesn’t excuse Kofi Annan for asking the US to close that facility while remaining silent about even worse violations by other UN member states.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 27, 2006 @ 6:30 pm - July 27, 2006

  15. See now, Juan, you just proved my point. Beaten to death and sodomized? At Gitmo?

    The equivalent *language* used means that you *believe* this crap. Because people have been crying “torture torture torture” you believe that they are talking about torture… not mistreatment, even, or abuse, but TORTURE. Stop claiming we should try maintain a HIGHER STANDARD when you actualy really believe that we do EXACTLY what the other guys do. We aren’t “as bad as them” because on a relative scale of expectations we fail. We’re as bad as them, apparently, because we do exactly what they do… beat people to death and sodomize them.

    Allegations made aren’t true just because an enemy of the United States made them. What we *know* has been done at Guantanimo really and truely *does* equate to “uncomfortable.” And perhaps it shouldn’t have been done. Personally, I can’t imagine the utility of coersive interrogation this far along in any case.

    On the other hand, it wouldn’t bring me to tears if they took every US provided Koran and flushed it down the loo.

    I know it’s fashionable to kick the big guy about human rights violations, particularly as our actual and *real* record on human rights puts every single other nation on the face of the earth to shame. Shame can be a powerful motivator.

    The US isn’t perfect, our justice system isn’t without flaws, capital punishment puts us on the top of “human rights abusers” lists all the time, there have been incidents in this war that were criminal… and those involved have faced and are facing military courts for what they’ve done.

    Until and unless Kofi can clean up his own house, he’s got no moral standing to complain at the odd roach in ours.

    And even then… there’s a hell of a lot of pain and horror in the world that goes on ignored or even encouraged because the tyrants and despots involved will just give the UN the finger. And then they’ll point that finger at the US. And the UN will nod sagely and will again denounce the US, because it’s the safe thing to do, and far more likely to get results since there are so many of our citizens who will agree to play that game.

    Because people hung for being gay or mutilated for being female or forced into the sex trade or just plain slaughtered in other countries aren’t REAL to them at all.

    Comment by Synova — July 27, 2006 @ 6:51 pm - July 27, 2006

  16. I’ve been wondering if Kofi Annan and “our very own” raj/ian are the same person. Neither has much use for the United States.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — July 28, 2006 @ 12:12 am - July 28, 2006

  17. #16 Trace Phelps — July 28, 2006 @ 12:12 am – July 28, 2006

    I’ve been wondering if Kofi Annan and “our very own” raj/ian are the same person.

    I can’t speak for Ian, but if I were to be confused with Kofi Annan, I would have to grow a few inches in height, get a very deep suntan, and learn another foreign language.

    Neither has much use for the United States.

    Au contraire. The US is a wonderful place to make a few bucks. And it’s particularly easy if you’re politically connected, like Jack Abramoff and his many, many friends.

    I’ll be pleased to make the few bucks that I can make–and after taxes, keep–in the US. I just don’t have a lot of interest in spending them in the US.

    Comment by raj — July 28, 2006 @ 8:07 am - July 28, 2006

  18. Trace, I think you’ve found a concept too brutal to contemplate or too OliverStone-wellian… Kofi’s been posting here all this time under the sock puppet artistry of raj and ian. It makes more sense that raj/ian’s comments.

    The true test would be to find a picture of Kofi with a tin foil hat on his head… then we’d know for sure.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 28, 2006 @ 10:34 am - July 28, 2006

  19. The equivalent *language* used means that you *believe* this crap. Because people have been crying “torture torture torture” you believe that they are talking about torture… not mistreatment, even, or abuse, but TORTURE.

    Why?

    Because Juan WANTS it to be true. He wants to believe that a Koran can be flushed down a toilet. America sucks and the claims of torture by those trained to do so proves it, dammit!.

    Juan pisses himself over how we allegedly treat our prisoners, but doesn’t seem to give a sweet goddamn about how they treat theirs.

    Here’s a bit of a clue for you, Juan. Our prisoners are alive. Their prisoners are DEAD.

    Now, who are the assholes here?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 28, 2006 @ 11:01 am - July 28, 2006

  20. Koffi is playing dad to the world. Bobby, the good son, was caught with a ciggy in hand, and Koffi-Dad grounded him for two weeks. Favorite son Johnny, the really, really bad son, comes home drunk and stoned, with blood on his clothes from doing God Knows What, and Koffi-Dad shruggs it off as being “just the way he is”.

    Comment by sonicfrog — July 28, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - July 28, 2006

  21. “This is exactly why I have long argued that the UN is a totally useless instutition and a giant money suck of US taxpayer dollars.”

    This statement is false on many counts. The UN is not a useless organization. Most of its operations are humanitarian and non-political including the distribution of food aid and contrceptives and medical supplies to poor African/Asian nations most americans have never read or heard of.

    The UN runs on a very small budget, smaller in fact than the NYPD and fire depts. and the US is NOT paid its share of the budget for many years, with other countries esp Japan paying for most of the upkeep despite not having a security council veto.

    The land on turtle bay was not a donation of the american people or the american government but a donation from John D Rockefeller. and the building itself was built with european donations.

    The vast majority of countries esp small ones see the UN as a vital organization and some even owe their existance and peace to the UN.
    Facts are more important than opinions, certainly bigotted and un-informed ones.

    Comment by Chan — July 30, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - July 30, 2006

  22. Chan (and is that Chan as in Chandler?), you write the UN is not an useless institution. The point is that isn’t a fact, Chan. It’s an opinion. Your ability or capacity to distinguish that difference tells me a lot about your interest in listening to anything anyone else says.

    The US gives more in direct and indriect contributions to the UN than any other of the 192 member states… in 2006, we’ll be at about 22% of the UN budgets… the closest ally is Japan at about 18%.

    We are in arrears in some contribution areas but that arose during the era when SenGOP leaders were trying hard to get the UN leadership to adopt basic integrity goals in accounting, responsiveness to Congressional inquiries, and some transparency in budgeting. We’re loaning the UN $1.2b to renovate the complex… how high does the benchmark need be to get you to accept America is doing her fair share and a heck of lot more???

    Your “fact” that the US has not paid it’s fair share is WRONG.

    See here:
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm (for 2002)
    http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=328791 (more current)
    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:EXw3bRg74v0J:www.gao.gov/new.items/d02294.pdf+US+contributions+UN&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4 (for a better, more informed understanding)

    Like you wrote: “Facts are more important than opinions, certainly bigotted and un-informed ones.”

    I’ll await an apology on behalf of the millions of Americans you slighted with your gross distortion of truth masquerading as fact.

    Don’t just talk the talk… walk it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 30, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - July 30, 2006

  23. #22 Michigan-Matt — July 30, 2006 @ 8:36 pm – July 30, 2006

    Your “fact” that the US has not paid it’s fair share [of dues to the UN] is WRONG.

    The fact that you apparently wish to ignore is that the US has not paid its agreed-to share of dues to the UN, whether or not you believe that that share was fair. If the US had wanted to reduce its agreed-to share, it could have attempted to do so by negotiation with the other parties involved, or, if that failed, by withdrawing from the organization. Those are the two options available in connection with most membership organizations, so why would they not be available here?

    It’s nice that the US has, with reference to your first link, provided assistance to the World Food Program, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and to the United Nations Development Program, but one might seriously wonder if this assistance was similar to the US’s foreign aid assistance. Which mainly consists of purchases of products from US producers that are then distributed abroad. In other words, welfare to US producers. I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the case. Corporate welfare.

    Comment by raj — July 31, 2006 @ 10:28 am - July 31, 2006

  24. -Michigan Matt

    I dont see the need to apologise for anything. If you read my post with less prejudice and anger u would see that I was attacking the statement posted : “This is exactly why I have long argued that the UN is a totally useless instutition and a giant money suck of US taxpayer dollars.”

    A fact is a well established opinion, highly evident and widely accepted. The UN clearly has vital utility. How do you quote US contributions to UN humanitarian efforts in one sentence and declare the UN as a useless institution in another?

    I also stand by my OPINION that UN is not a giant sink of US taxpayers money. YOu have not disputed any of my facts. Quoting absolute numbers is also not helpful, relative numbers that compare US contributions with that of other nations and in relation to its own economic size might be more useful. perhaps you could also provide urls that are not linked to US govt sites.

    One of the urls u used links to a second page which is not so forgiving of US treatment of the UN.
    http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=328793

    I ended my post with an appeal for less bigotted posts backed with clear facts, why you should see it as an attack on your opinions/the american people in general is quite beyond comprehension.

    Comment by Chan — July 31, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - July 31, 2006

  25. Chan, here’s the rub of it… it doesn’t matter what honest facts are brought to the table for your instruction on this issue –when you can write something like “perhaps you could also provide urls that are not linked to US govt sites” –it is astounding. Anger? At that kind of arrogant, disdainful perspective? You bet.

    Of course you won’t apologize to Americans you slighted because your world view sees America and Americans as evil, beyond trust -as the quote above clearly indicates.

    Chan, I gave you percentages… compared US with Japan contributions for instance. You simply choose to overlook reason or facts in a defense of your opinions –which are NOT supported by a fair review of the facts.

    I didn’t fail comprehension in grammar school, Chan. Nice try at diversion, but that old game of spin won’t work here. When you write: “A fact is a well established opinion, highly evident and widely accepted. The UN clearly has vital utility.” Maybe in your neck of the woods Chan… in my world facts are not just the majority’s opinions… they are, well, facts. You need to get definition between what is fact and what is a majority of opinion down pat.

    Gheez. The UN does not, in my view (and opinion supported by facts) have utility. I don’t think the level of humanitarian effort validates the UN’s existence and continued support. Finally, I think you fail to understand basic considerations like the involvement of the US military in UN peace keeping missions… the inkind contributions of the US to the UN is staggering.

    Fair share? Fair to whom? The UN failures masquerading as leaders?

    Sorry Chan, your dog don’t hunt. The UN is a failure. It is a deep black hole we continue to fill with money without utility. And helping them build a new HdQtrs won’t make a bit of difference –or bring about any reform.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 2, 2006 @ 5:48 am - August 2, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.