united nations archive at Haemet

Maybe it is just my pathetic, college-aged sense of humor, but does any one else find it funny that the new UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon is being called a tool?

(If I were capable of photoshopping, trust me, I would.)

Every so often, I take a glance at the Christian Science Monitor. It is usually a decent source with minimal signs of bias, if any. (At least it was a couple years ago when I was a more frequent reader.) Anyway, this headline caught my eye earlier this morning: “Early accolades for UN’s new chief - with caveats”

It is a pretty interesting article, especially because I don’t feel like we have been hearing much about Mr. Moon in the MSM and/or popular blogs. Maybe, that could be because he isn’t involved in any steamy - or should I say oily? - scandals… yet. And so far, his family is on the up and up (no taxpayer funded apartments for the brother, that we know of).

So, is it possible that conservatives, from the Heritage Foundation of all places, could be optimistic about the new secretary-general? Apparently, it is:

When spending and accounting questions arose recently about the United Nations Development Program in North Korea, new UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon wasted little time moving into damage-control mode.

After all, he was fully aware of the toll that the Iraq oil-for-food scandal had taken on both the UN and his predecessor, Kofi Annan.

And so Mr. Ban summoned a top UNDP administrator, organized media access to some of the program’s senior staff, and issued a statement calling for “an urgent, system-wide and external inquiry” into the financial activities of all UN programs.

That quick action within the first month of his arrival on the job has won Ban some early accolades – including from some quarters among US conservatives that are never prone to kind words about the UN.

“Just by promising an investigation into the UNDP scandal, he sets a different tone, and that is very refreshing after the secrecy that cloaked the institution in the Kofi Annan years,” says Nile Gardiner, a UN expert and frequent critic at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

True fact. If the UN wants to see any continued support from the US - (and I’m still for abolishing the UN no matter how nice the chief is) - they had better be changing it up a bit.

Now, for my favorite part of this article: the “caveat” mentioned in the headline. It would seem that not everyone is pleased with the way the new secretary general is handling himself.

Yet even as he wins some initial praise, Ban is also raising some questions with his first appointments, while leading others to wonder if he isn’t coming off as too much of a big-powers secretary-general. Ban, they worry, is showing signs of paying deference to a time-honored system that divvies up key posts among the powers that formed the UN system six decades ago – the US, Britain, and France in particular.

Oh, no! The U.N. is divvying up the best positions between the countries that actually pay the most money to the U.N.? What is the world coming to? I don’t know how France still gets in on the spoils system, to be honest. But whatever. If it makes the “others” angry, it can’t be that bad. And who are those “others” that are wondering?

“So far, there’s been some of the same division of senior posts on the traditional great-power spoils system that we’ve seen in the past,” says Michael Doyle, a former senior UN official now at Columbia University in New York.

Boy, if that don’t beat all. A former senior UN official gone Columbia professor. I’ll bet his parents are proud. But seriously, this is a former minion of Kofi complaining about the administration that replaced his boss. It was one thing when the spoils system favored the non-traditional great powers like Saddam and little Kojo… but anything that benefits the US has got to stop.

The entire article is worth reading - there is one really cute poem/song that Ban Ki Moon made up, haha. But, back to my opening question. In all fairness, it appears that the critics are calling the UN, not Ban Ki Moon, a tool… but it is really all the same.

Now out of the running for the humanitarian post, the US is seeking the top political-affairs post – a possibility that some UN experts say could actually run counter to US interests by making the UN look too much like a tool of American diplomacy.

Oh, come on. Could the UN really run any more counter to US interests? Especially if the US controlled the top political-affairs post?

Closing comments: Gimme a break. The day the UN becomes a “tool” of American diplomacy will be the day Ann Coulter is elected President of the US. Both great daydreams, but completely unrealistic.

I’m in the middle of a lot of planning for the Cornell Coalition for Life (CCFL) right now. I don’t really have a lot of time to blog, but it is a good stress reliever and I feel a little guilty ignoring my blog. Sooo… I invented a weekly smorgasbord. These are a few articles that caught my eye over the week.

“Spy Jonathan Pollard caught on tape” from MSNBC

Not really sure how I feel about this one. In general, I view people who spy on America as uncool. If you get caught spying on our country, I feel that we ought to help you out and give you an inside look at the way our death penalty works. However, I love Israel almost on the same level that I love America.

Over 18 months, he stole an estimated 1 million documents, including sensitive intelligence about the Soviet Union and the Middle East, potentially compromising sources and methods.

“It devastated the national security of this country,” says Olive.

Though Pollard confessed to the crime, leaders of Israel and Pollard’s supporters in the U.S. have vigorously lobbied to get him released from prison or pardoned, arguing that he was, after all, spying for a friend of the U.S., not a sworn enemy.

Pollard was sentenced to life in prison and has served 20 years.

“He has served longer than any American in history for spying for an ally, and every day he spends in prison now is a day of injustice,” says Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Ridiculous. Our country is full of real traitors who do far worse than spying for Israel and get off with a mere slap of the hand, (i.e. Senator Rockefeller’s special visit to the Middle East before the war with Iraq, Jane Fonda’s little jaunt in Vietnam, NY Times revealing every little top secret tidbit they can get their hands on, etc.). I would even say that the talking heads in the media harm our country more with their lies than Pollard ever could. I don’t know… I guess we have to punish him somehow for getting caught to keep face. But life in prison? Serial killers and rapists commit far worse crimes and sometimes don’t get life in prison. Weird.

“To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered” from everybody’s favorite traitor, the New York Times.

This was pretty much a hodgepodge of statistics that didn’t bother me one way or the other. But, there were a few lines that made me chuckle.

The highest share of male couples was in San Francisco, where, according to the census, they accounted for nearly 2 percent of all households.

Hahaha… um, are we supposed to be surprised here? Do they honestly think they’re telling us something we don’t know?

A number of couples interviewed agreed that cohabiting was akin to taking a test drive and, given the scarcity of affordable apartments and homes, also a matter of convenience. Some said that pregnancy was the only thing that would prompt them to make a legal commitment soon. Others said they never intended to marry. A few of those couples said they were inspired by solidarity with gay and lesbian couples who cannot legally marry in most states.

… a test drive? Ew. Convenience? Double ew. Never intending to marry? Give me a break. I’m pretty sure that is just code for: “Hey, I kind of like you, but who knows what hottie may come by next so let’s keep this on the down-low.” And the solidarity thing really does make me laugh. I say, knock yourselves out kiddos.

There was only one little quote that crossed the funny line and honestly annoyed me just a bit.

“Cohabitating is our choice, and we have no intention to be married,” Ms. Lynch said. “There is little difference between what we do and what married people do. We love each other, exist together, all of our decisions are based upon each other. Everyone we care about knows this.”

If anything, she added, “not having the false security of wedding rings makes us work even a little harder.”

False security? Oh, I’m sorry. You must have meant the maturity to actually commit to a moral relationship rather than just shacking up. Cohabitating is your choice, eh? You mean you couldn’t convince your man to marry you. I almost feel sorry for you… but not quite.

“Ban Ki-Moon: Rice Should Talk with North Korea” from the completely unbiased ABC News

I actually read this on Hot Air and thought it was really interesting. As I stated in my comment there, I ultimately feel that the UN is a completely useless waste of time, money, and New York real estate. However, because our President and Congress are completely spineless and would never withdraw from the UN, we basically have to put up with it… for now. When I’m the president (I turn 35 in 2022, so I’ll be elected in… 2024, right?), we’ll get rid of it. Anyway, back to putting up with it for now. I am slightly optimistic about Ban Ki-Moon (is that all his last name or is Ban his first name?) in that he doesn’t hate America yet. “Slightly optimistic” really means nothing. He’s just off to a bit of a better start that Kofi Annan.