The long knives are out for the head of the IAEA...
Reports are surfacing that the United States has is seeking behind the scenes support to oust Mohammed ElBaradei from his post as head of the IAEA, the UN group in charge of overlooking nuclear proliferation until it is too late.
This shouldn't require much armtwisting. North Korea nuclearized on this guy's watch, and Iran is threatening to do the same. Fiddle in one hand, torch in the other, ElBaradei has no credibility in preventing nuclear proliferation, at any level. Of course, one has to wonder, if he's fidlling around, or if it's Iran playing him like a fiddle.
The simple truth is Iran is seeking nuclear capabilities in an overt fashion, but the IAEA head either refuses to acknowledge this, or has another agenda in stalling action. Regardless, he is not part of the solution - he has become part of the problem. I know this is hard to believe, but the United Nations could use someone with a stronger sense of leadership and action in dealing with these issues.
Hey, we can dream, can't we?
The United Nations slides further out to sea...
The United States is letting the United Nations hear it's displeasure that a panel setting the agenda for it's Human Rights Commission will include - get ready - Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and Zimbabwe.
So, a country where women cannot vote and are treated like chattle, a country where dissidents are locked up and the country is stuck in a dictator's time capsule, and a country where the only leader it's ever known is a brutal dictator who vote rigged his election - these are deciding the agenda for human rights for the UN? If the subject matter was less serious, this would be comical. Having these three regimes setting an agenda on human rights is inexcusable.
It's well past time to stop pretending that the United Nations works. It doesn't. It doesn't prevent humanitarian crises, it creates the environment where they can occur. Whereas nations normally might act in their own interest to intervene in crises such as Rwanda or Sudan, now the UN is where such interventions go to die. The United Nations has given us Darfur, Rwanda, Oil For Food, Bosnia...
An incredible debt will go to whoever has the sand to go to the UN and threaten a United States withdrawal unless serious reforms are implemented.
If a pot calls a kettle black in the Rwandan forest, and nobody is alive to hear it, does it make a sound?
From the same article referenced below, the stammeringly hypocritical chiding of Belgium by Annan for withdrawing their peacekeepers requires some rebuke. Sure - they're European, and Belgian to boot, and will have little stomach for a fight. But when people in Baghdad and Iraq were in need, the UN bugged out after a single attack on their HQ. Bloody? Yes. But doesn't that go with the territory? And isn't that the direct lesson learned by those who oppose the UN - that adversity is something the UN cannot deal with? Was that not the lesson the Belgians taught, and the UN, and now the Spanish?