United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is a prime example, I wrote last week, of Peter’s Principle—“an individual in a hierarchical organization rises to the level of his incompetence”—at work.
Now, just weeks before his departure from the United Nations, Annan revealed how utterly depraved his politics are when he stated in a BBC interview Iraq is now worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.
Annan is of course the ethically void Secretary-General under whose watch the Oil-for-Food program, with Iraq’s old regime, turned out to be the worst financial scam in the history of the United Nations.
Annan said, “If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison—that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, ‘Am I going to see my child again?’… And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control.”
Such a rant coming from a Michael Moore would be predictable.
But when the Secretary-General makes such despicable observations, it is then quite appropriate to assume he is not alone in such thinking inside the United Nations.
In order to appreciate how rotten is the thinking of Annan and his cohort, imagine the Secretary-General transported back in time to the year 1940, and from some corner of Europe under the heels of Hitler’s Third Reich he speaks out as the head of an utterly discredited League of Nations.
Britain is under siege, France has fallen, and Hitler’s air force, the Luftwaffe, launches the Battle for Britain levelling towns and cities of the island nation standing alone for freedom and democracy against the full tide of German Nazism.
Then read those words of Annan given to the BBC interview, substituting Britain for Iraq, and suggesting how much better England would be were it not for Churchill who has failed to bring violence to an end.
Only the wilfully ignorant will refuse, given the evidence, to comprehend why the UN has been an utter failure when confronted with the evil of our time from Rwanda through Somalia to the Balkans and Darfur.
The United Nations has become the gathering place for the hyenas of our world—representatives of tyrannies, medieval fiefdoms, dictatorships and Mafia states—devouring their own people and blackmailing liberal societies by the sheer weight of numbers in a regular mockery of democracy in the General Assembly.
In his magnificent study of the United Nations—Complicity with Evil: The United Nations in the Age of Modern Genocide—Adam Lebor exposes the sheer bankruptcy of an organization founded to preserve the noblest aims of mankind.
Lebor quotes Mukesh Kapila, United Nations resident coordinator in Sudan from March 2003 to April 2004, to illuminate the darkness at the UN headquarters in New York and Geneva.
Kapila observed, “Trying to alert the Department of Political Affairs in New York about what was happening in Darfur was like speaking into a dark well, where your words just disappeared into nothingness.”
The ranting against the United States and the singling out of Israel to heap abuse piled high with anti-Semitic bigotry reflect the only area of agreement among these wretched violators of human rights, else they would be tearing each other apart as Saddam’s Iraq and Khomeini’s Iran so amply demonstrated not too long ago.
The United Nations is depraved and beyond reform.
Indeed, democracies such as Canada should resign from the UN and construct a democratic coalition where victims of the hyenas might at least get an impartial hearing, consistent support and even, on occasion, genuine assistance.
He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Center for Islamic Pluralism based in Washington, D.C., a Senior Fellow with the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, and an academic-consultant with the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. He has been a consultant with CIDA on development issues and has published widely in academic journals on foreign policy matters and area studies of the Middle East and South Asia.
Mansur is featured on the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West produced by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He also unsuccessfully ran for the Canadian Alliance party in 2000.
Mansur has been accused by Canadian Islamic Congress of using "provocative, self-serving rhetoric", and for "promoting an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim agenda".
He is an Ismaili Muslim.
At a press conference on October 2, 2008, Mansur stated that "Islam is my private life, my conscience...[but] my faith does not take precedence over my duties...to Canada and its constitution, which I embrace freely;" "I am first and most importantly a Canadian;" "only in a free society will you find Islam as a faith and not a political religion." Mansur also criticized New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton, whom Mansur said "has gone to bed with Islamists", because he is running candidates in Ontario and Quebec who are closely identified with the push for Sharia law.
- Israel: Decades-old conflict not about to cease - Saturday November 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm
- The better man lost the U.S. election - Saturday November 10, 2012 at 9:16 am
- The puzzle in U.S. presidential elections - Saturday November 3, 2012 at 8:43 am
