Getting Rid of Christian Boutros-Ghali in favor Muslim Kofi Annan (Clinton-Dole did it)

stanleymeisler.com ^ | October 18, 1996 | Stanley Meisler

[Destro]

Getting Rid of Boutros-Ghali

by Stanley Meisler

In the 1970s, when Kurt Waldheim was Secretary-General, reporters at the United Nations used to call him The Headwaiter. "He always stood there," recalled Don Shannon, the U.N. correspondent for the Los Angeles Times in those days, "as if he were wringing his hands on a towel, asking what he could do for the powerful countries." That kind of a scene would warm the hearts of American officials these days. Despite all the protests by Secretary of State Warren Christopher and U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright that the United States will veto a second term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali because of his weakness on issues of reform, the truth is that he has failed to serve them well as a headwaiter. The U.S. would like to see another Kurt Waldheim in the job, though, of course, they want a Kurt Waldheim this time without a Nazi past.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the long-time Egyptian professor and diplomat, is probably the most fiercely independent Secretary-General since Dag Hammarskjöld died in 1961. A brilliant analyst, Boutros-Ghali likes to dissect a problem from many angles before reaching a conclusion. But, once he makes up his mind, he acts decisively and holds to his point of view. Much like Hammarskjöld, he looks on himself as a major player on the world scene. He is steeled by an intellectual arrogance that often makes him stand up to the United States when it is politically foolish to do so.

A Coptic Christian who served in an Islamic government for many years, he is a secretive man who does not delegate authority easily. "There is a joke," said an ambassador on the Security Council, "that whenever the Secretary-General wants to look for someone he can trust, he stands up on his two feet, walks across the room to the wall, and looks into the mirror." He does not like to spend much time with the press, and he is a poor communicator in English - his third language - on American television. All in all, he is not the kind of foreign politician that Americans like, and it is no secret that he and Albright have had a succession of spats.

But his problem is compounded by far more than the personal animosity of Ambassador Albright. Both the U.N. and Boutros-Ghali have become a political liability in the United States. First of all, they were used as the scapegoat for the debacle in Somalia. When 18 American Rangers died in an abortive raid in Mogadishu in October 1993, U.S. officials unfairly laid the blame on the U.N. and its Secretary-General. In fact, the Rangers were under the direct command of Major General William F. Garrison, who reported to U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, not the U.N. But the White House did not deem it politically wise to point this out.

The U.N. received unfair blame for Bosnia as well. Throughout the war, U.S. officials continually berated Boutros-Ghali and his man in the former Yugoslavia, Yasushi Akashi, for standing in the way of bombing the Serbs. In fact, Akashi never overruled the decision of his military commander, a French general. The French and British had supplied most of the U.N. peacekeepers in Bosnia, and they did not want bombing for fear of retaliation against their soldiers. The Serbs were not bombed seriously for most of the war because the United States could not get its allies to agree. When they finally did agree, the Serbs were bombed. It was too late by then, however, to save the U.N. from humiliation over Bosnia.

To make matters worse, the Clinton Administration devised the strategy of defending the U.N. from a hostile Congress by publicly trying to whip it into shape. Congress would finally appropriate money for the U.N., according to this strategy, if the U.N. reformed. Reform, however, is a phoney issue; no amount of reform will ever satisfy the most hostile members of Congress. They refuse to understand the U.N. and persist in exposing their ignorance by attacking it as an usurper of American sovereignty. The constant belittling of the U.N. as a bloated bureaucracy in dire need of reform hardly enhanced its image.

The image of the U.N. had become so murky at the beginning of this presidential election year that Republican candidate Bob Dole would repeat the name Boutros Boutros-Ghali with such venom and contempt that you might think he was upset most of all by the sound of the name. It is doubtful that Dole's antics succeeded in swinging more than a handful of voters to his side. Nevertheless, the Clinton team saw no point in losing even that handful over a U.N. Secretary-General that they disliked. They announced their intention to veto him.

The arrogant announcement has annoyed many members of the U.N. and generated a good deal of sympathy for Boutros-Ghali. But there is little hope that he can somehow survive an American veto. Under the U.N. Charter, the 15-member Security Council nominates a Secretary-General for approval by the 185-member General Assembly. Some Boutros-Ghali supporters hope that another of the veto-armed Big Five - China, most likely - will veto every other candidate so long as the U.S. vetoes Boutros-Ghali. With the Security Council paralyzed and unable to nominate a new Secretary-General, the General Assembly might then extend Boutros-Ghali's original term for a few more years, without calling it a second term. That happened once before - when the General Assembly extended Trygve Lie's term for three years in 1950.

But it is hard to see China vetoing all other candidates - especially if the Americans succeed in their strategy of persuading the Africans to come up with a new African candidate as soon as Boutros-Ghali is vetoed. That suggestion has tempted some African governments already, and there is a good deal of talk in U.N. corridors about the chances of three Africans - Kofi Annan of Ghana, the undersecretary general in charge of peacekeeping; Olara Otunnu of Uganda, the president of the International Peace Academy; and Ahmed Salim Salim of Tanzania, the secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity.

There would be a great irony if Salim Salim slips in. In 1981, the United States used its veto to force him to withdraw. Salim Salim had infuriated the U.S. by leading a victory dance in the aisles ten years earlier when the General Assembly finally voted to admit Communist China to membership. The American choice in 1981 was Kurt Waldheim, running for a third term. But, fortunately for the U.N., The Headwaiter was vetoed by China.

October 18, 1996
Washington D.C.

[Destro]

So we ejected a Christian UN Gen Sec. who tried to stop Clinton/Dole from bombing the Serbs in favor of the Muslims for a Muslim who gave them the green light. And now we hear Kofi's son was an Iraqi bribed agent of some sort.

Clinton and Dole should both be investigated, IMHO.

[Destro]

bump

[joesnuffy]

Ah....The UN and New World Odor intrigues....I love the smell of burning tinfoil in the morning

[quidnunc]

Just one problem; Kofi Annan isn't a Muslim.

[philosofy123]

Reading this article for the first time, even though it was written in 1996, it makes my blood boils. Having ignorant and inept politicians in Washington to run the business of the biggest wealthiest most educate nation - what a shame!

Clinton was reelected because conservatives like me voted against Dole, the loser! No political party should force a worthless candidate on its members!

The bombing of Serbia was one of the most shameful acts the US ever done. Vetoing Butros Ghali is also ranked up there with dumb decision of stupid politicians. I have screamed endlessly to our support of Moslem fanatics in Bosnia, and was ashamed that my country was in bed with Iran, Bin Laden, the KLA drug gangs against the highly civilized poor Christian orthodox in Serbia.

[Robert_Paulson2]

follow the money.
always.
period.

this is where religious conservatives consistantly miss the boat. they follow the religious implications. as long as the fella is kinda our guy, we are blind to the REAL motivations behind virtually EVERY decision, choice, legislation and international mess. the pursuit and aquisition of money or it's equivalent and more liquid form... power.

if he's not our kinda guy, we focus on his or her immoral lifestyle... missing the REAL corruption that is going on: selling missile tech to the chicoms and who knows what else.

none of us is above the twisting, turning, and motivating force of either direct form of wealth: money or power. we should not be surprised that our leaders are in our own image and are easily bent by them as well.

clinton and dole did what they did, and allowed what was allowed to get money, power, influence, special favors for friends, family and their own support network members.

they all do it.
they are all corrupt.
and the laughable offering of something to placate the 'integrity in politics' masses, like "mccain feingold" turns out to be nothing more but another transparent 'fig leaf' that covers nothing: at least for those willing to follow the money.

you are damned straight on.
dole and clintong should be investigated. or worse.
and the folks obsessed with the penile problems of "mr. lying about sex" or the alleged integrity of "mr. viagra." simply missed what was really going on... though we talked about it here extensively.

while so-cons railed about their disgust at the immorality of oral sex (the red herring), clintong and his complacent opposition were moving whales in and out of national government structures and international policies vital to our security.

all government by nature is corrupt. those in power are corrupted by it's perks. the way to keep corruption down is not more laws, not more expansion, but the shrinking of the size and power of government to its bare minimum for national defense and infrastructure.

the last real governmental program butcher was newt...and the socons ran him out of the party power structure for his marital problems. too bad. he was a governmental sling blade.

like you, I could not believe when we sided against the guys who were of similar european background, and religious faith (ther serbs), and with the guys who bombed our embassies and barracks in the middle east (the radical muslims).

some damages cannot be undone. this was, I am convinced, one fo those irretractable choices on our part as a nation.
but there are several things we could do to start repairing the damage:

I would like to see a return to real fiscal conservatism.
I would like to see governmental departments closed and programs rolled back... all of them. close the candy store and the constant hemorraging of our gnp.
period.

[lady lawyer]

Ghana is a Christian country. Annan isn't a Muslim. I spent years at the UN, having lots of contact with Muslim diplomats. If Annan were a Muslim, I would have heard about it.

[horse_doc]

Neither one of these guys were worth the U.N.Gen. Sec. job. They were picked because "it was Africa's turn" to hold the top spot.

It doesn't matter what religion they are - they are both incompetent goofs, in an organization chock full of incompetent goofs.

[Turbodog]

"Ghana is a Christian country. Annan isn't a Muslim. I spent years at the UN, having lots of contact with Muslim diplomats. If Annan were a Muslim, I would have heard about it.

As usual, you are wrong, even over here.

[AmishDude]

It seems to me that Annan is not a Muslim. I cannot find it anywhere. Do you have a link?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since this article predates the bombing of Serbia I think your conclusion needs some work.

The Abomination didn't start the bombing for a couple of yrs. after this was written. Thus, the UN didn't stop it nor did the Abomination ask its permission two yrs. later.

The headline is completely misleading while Dole may not have liked ole Boutros he did not have the power to veto his retention of power. Only The Abomination could do that.

[lady lawyer]

Any proof? Where does this "as usual" come from?

[AmishDude]

Interesting source. Let's see what else Stanley Meisler wrote:

Depressing Thoughts on Our Victory
April 29, 2003
Those of us who opposed the war were probably right. Iraq posed no danger to Americans. It had few, if any, prohibited weapons ready to strike. No link with terrorism was ever proven. No doubt Saddam Hussein was a despicable tyrant but we have always tolerated - and still do - a globe full of them. But none of this really matters. We might as well, like Lear, rail at the wind and storms. History belongs to the victors. Only they can gloat...

Quite the source you've got there, Destro.

[AmishDude]

Where does this "as usual" come from?

I was wondering that as well.

[Robert_Paulson2]

actually, he is.
well known but usually covered up by the left in the media.

[Excuse_Me]

He says he is not. And if he is a Muslim and denies he is a Muslim; that is punishable by death according to Islamic Law. He stated he was not a Muslim in his speech to the Islamic World.

[Robert_Paulson2]

love to see that speech you refer to.
I believe at best, he was raised in an islamic home, and may have had to temporarily renounce it as a condition of his UN job.

As to whether or not he is a practicing muslim (as in the five paryer times a day and no alchohol)... no, he does not practice islam. His wife is a secular artist (reportedly) of the swedish variety, quite liberal, which is not islamic at all. So no, he is not islamic... but by those standards, neither was sadaam hussein.

but as to his background, faith of his upbringing and such... I believe he is, or was.
perhaps he may have converted to ba'hai or something benign since his youth... however if you asked him "have you ever practiced or espoused the koran, allah and the islamic faith?" I believe you would find, he has, or still does somewhat... believe in islam.

and if he is not... I guess it wouldn't matter much to me... as he sides with them, whoever they are killing... and against america and the jewish people in general..

kinda like a democrat.

[peter the great]

Unfortunately I have got to run. Anyway one of the guys that I blame for getting rid of Boutros Boutros Ghali is Pat Buchanan. In the Presidential election he ranted on and on about our troops being placed under UN Control and Khofi Anan was the consequence of that action in my humble opinion.

[Robert_Paulson2]

lying to deceive the "kufir" is considered a great testimony and honor to followers of islam.

the real question here is would kofi annan really lie to us....

[Destro]

Anan is from Kumasi, where redently Muslims have gone on rampages against Christian missionaries.