Skip to comments.The Final Clinton Gift ? Give us Osama in 30 days, or.?..Dec.20, 2000 (title-mine)
Posted on 09/20/2001 3:15:16 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
Tough Sanctions Imposed on Taliban Government Split UN
By Barbara Crossette
New York Times
December 20, 2000
Led by the United States and Russia, the Security Council imposed harsh new sanctions on the Taliban government of Afghanistan today, leaving the United Nations profoundly split over the human and political damage the measures could inflict on one of the world's poorest nations. The vote in the 15-member Council was 13 for the embargo, with China and Malaysia abstaining.
At a year-end news conference, Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed his barely concealed displeasure at the move, which was also opposed by his special envoy trying to start peace negotiations between the Taliban and the remnants of an opposition army fighting in a corner of the country. United Nations relief officials working in Afghanistan have been unusually public in their criticism. Private agencies also lobbied the Council against taking this step. "It is not going to facilitate our peace efforts, nor is it going to facilitate our humanitarian work," Mr. Annan said of the Security Council action. "I think we had given adequate indications of that to the Council. But the decision belongs to the Council and of course, once they take the decision, we have to adapt and take the necessary measures that are required."
Today, the United Nations removed all its remaining relief workers from the country, fearing a backlash from the Taliban, who will be almost completely isolated diplomatically when the resolution takes effect in 30 days, a grace period during which the Taliban could avoid sanctions by meeting the Council's demands. Air links will be cut and an arms and military training embargo will be imposed only on the Taliban, not their armed opposition, which is supplied by Russia, Iran and India. All assets belonging to Osama bin Laden, who is thought to be living in Afghanistan, will be ordered frozen around the world.
The United States has been demanding Mr. bin Laden's expulsion from Afghanistan to stand trial for masterminding explosions at American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The new sanctions imposed today are linked to the refusal of the Taliban to meet that demand sanctions a year ago. For Russia, the Taliban are assumed to be behind an Islamic rebellion in Chechnya.
Russian and American pressure on Security Council members and some officials in the United Nations secretariat has been intense, diplomats said. Two weeks ago, as the sanctions resolution was circulating, the Russian representative complained to Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette that the coordinator of relief work in Afghanistan, Erick de Mul of the Netherlands, was undermining the anti-Taliban campaign by drawing attention to what he believed would be the adverse effects of the tightened embargo on ordinary Afghans, already among the poorest people in the world.
United Nations officials have warned that as many as a million Afghans could face starvation in coming months because of a drought and continued civil war.
Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, speaking for the United States today, said that the Security Council was taking "a strong stand against terrorism." She described Mr. bin Laden as "the world's most wanted terrorist."
"The Taliban cannot continue to flout the will of the international community and support and shelter terrorists without repercussions," she said in the Council following the vote. "As long as the Taliban continues to harbor terrorists, in particular Osama bin Laden, and to promote terrorism, it remains a threat to international peace and security.
For the record, the Bush administration did allow for $43 million in aid -to Afghanistan, after being approached numerous times by the UN, Colin Powell, US Senators (especially Diane Feinstein) and various charity organizations concerned about the starvation resulting from the drought and sanctions. I am not condoning this, simply adding perspective. It was mainly organizations friendly with the left that insisted this aid was necessary and their implications that George W. Bush funded the Taliban and thus the attack last Tues. is shameless (see links above for further details).
After reading multiple State Dept. briefings and UN Security Council speeches from the Clinton years, it is clear that they made a lot of noise, used colorful language in their threats against terrorism and Osama/Usama, and it also clear that they did nothing substantial about it. The UN played the same game, threats, then nothing -with the added insistence that we must negotiate and not use military force to go after Bin Ladin and co. I'm sure Osama was shaking in his boots.
The 1999 Report on Terrorism, very tidy and colorful on the State Dept website (see link above) lists attack after attack from the militant Muslims. Added info on the Report includes names of terrorist organizations, locations, and weapons when known. They show us they "cared" enough about terrorism to study it and provide us with these details. The question then becomes, if they knew all this -as they clearly did- why didn't they do anything about it? Clinton and his staff often say things like "you know that we've worked hard to fight the war on terrorism," the press jumps on the multiple soundbites and once again refuses to ask, "what have you done?"
He left so many parting gifts for the new President, a mass of last minute executive orders which included new arsenic standards, turning ANWR into a national monument to guarantee a fight for oil, the pardons. It could be argued that Clinton never expected Gore to win this election. I do believe he is capable of willfully planning and executing a series of parting gifts to hamper and hurt George W. Bush and his Presidency.
What a difference between Tamim's common sense analysis of Afghanistan and the UN, pundits and relief organizations continued insistence that negotiations and $$$$ will change things.
President Bush and his staff have been extremely patient with those who want to "bomb them back to the stone age" (understandable). Donald Rumsfeld is surprisingly calm in front of the cameras, reasoned and deliberate, knowing both the truth about the terrorist capabilities and minds, and the difficulty getting them.
Maybe America will actually listen to the President tonight, and learn why our thoroughness, and determination are necessary. I can't imagine anything more difficult than trying to get the truth across to distraught Americans wanting vengence now.
Both of them can spend eternity in hell.
At first the conservatives at CG, and even a few liberals who still have a soul, tried to convince them to shut up. But they refused. Their screen names, if you'd like to wander over and flame them mercilessly, are NJCher, Youthful Indiscretion, SunRock and George bush-bin-Laden. The latter screen name, custom-designed for the occasion, was posting entire essays from Salon, DU and Bartcop, showing that at the left-wing hate sites, the "hate Bush, blame Bush" mantra was going full blast.
I started going around to every thread started by Youthful Indiscretion, posting a statement (with link) from Colin Powell indicating that the $43 million in aid was in the form of grain, medical supplies and other hard goods, routed directly to Red Crescent (Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross) and other relief organizations to keep it out of the hands of the Taliban. Powell also pointed out that last year we gave $114 million in aid for the Afghan refugees.
I then posed a few questions to these left-wing punks at CG: First, do you really believe that in some smoke-filled room at the White House, Bush said to Powell, "Here's an idea. Let's send $43 million in small, unmarked bills to Osama bin Laden. I hear he's planning to blow up the World Trade Center and destroy America, and that should help him a lot"?
Second, do you really think anyone else is stupid enough to believe it?
Third, did Clinton send his $114 million in the form of grain and other hard goods directly to relief organizations or did he send his boys to deliver it in small, unmarked bills to bin Laden? (Inquiring minds want to know.)
And fourth, why weren't all the liberal-sympathizing TV journalists asking the same silly questions last year?
Then I discovered that Clinton waited until Dec. 20th, 2000 to issue his last (Osama thought was empty (^:) threat, tougher sanctions in 30 days unless Osama's delivered. Now he knew this would anger not only the Taliban, but his terrorist pals across the world. He also knew that 30 days from Dec. 20th was Jan. 20th. The electoral college voted Dec. 18th, confirming President Bush. After the trouble Clinton left for our President, and the nastiness of his pals since Jan., this last bomb left intentionally on the date of Dec. 20th-set to explode in 30 days- is, to me, the cruelest trick Slick played.
Snow Bunny, I would "move on" if his minions weren't all over the networks spinning about how hard they worked to fight terrorism and covering their clymers. President Bush is a superhuman, IMHO, reaching out to those who have tried so hard to destroy him. Bryan says that the Dem. discussion boards are still blaming our good Commander-in-Chief. We, here at FR, are doing are best to set them straight. (^:
DEC.18, 2000-ELECTORAL COLLEGE elects GEORGE W. BUSH.
DEC.20, 2000-CLINTON ADMINISTRATION gives Afghanistan 30 day ULTIMATUM..until-
JAN.20, 2001...INAUGERATION DAY for PRESIDENT BUSH.
This ENEMY is being exposed. Aloha!
Suggestion to the EU- check out details of the terrorist incidents attributed to these monsters, visit ground 0 in NY and talk to the families and rescue workers, do some research into the past work of the UN re. Osama and friends - appeasement and consolation.
You can not negotiate with terrorists. The terrorists know this as an empty threat and care nothing about the counsel of your "wisest" and most influential leaders. They have their own agenda, and it will never include the civilized west, or any other platform, treaty, philosophy, or have any concern for "diplocmacy." You are endangering everyone involved with this effort and innocent citizens aroung the world by naively calling for UN involvement now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.