Re: OT-rant
In article <mtqbe.325$n24.5632@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>,
"Gut-buster" <donot-stare@me.privateparts.or.else> wrote:
> "John Husvar" <jhusvar@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jhusvar-ECC322.08034826042005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com..
>
> That is certainly true. Robert Mugabe demonstrates that is what he wants
> with every ruling he makes.
>
> It doesn't answer the question as to why Kofi Anan seems silent on Mugabe'
s
> obviously racist policies but comes out against any nation doing things he
> considers racist elsewhere. I thought the U.N. was supposed to be fair and
> impartial? If so, why is he there at all?
I think the operative word is "supposed." U.N. pronouncements say more
like: "The check's in the mail." or "Of course I'll respect you in the
morning." than anything effectual.
As to why Kofi Anan himself seems silent about one nation's actions
while condemning others', It seems hypocritical, but then the whole U.N.
is a just another League of Nations in my estimation. What Anan says or
decides has no more force than what you or I decide, on the grand scale.
His hypocrisy is irrelevant except to expose the real power of the U.N.
(i.e. none.)
He will pick and choose whom he will criticize because he can, with
neither enforceability upon others nor consequences to himself. That
some may consider him hypocritical doesn't signify. The worst that can
happen to him is to be voted out of office. If half what he's been
accused of over the Iraq Oil for Food program turns out to be true, he's
set for life anyway.
The U.N. seems more like a diplomats' debating (Or mutual mental
masturbation) club because it has, first, members with complete veto
power and, second, no way to enforce rulings unless a powerful member
decides to go along and do the enforcing. I'm not at all sure its
independently having such power would be a good thing.
Ah, well, I ramble.
|