Chirac’s Back — UN Back to ‘Normal’
Vol: 23 Issue: 22 Friday, August 22, 2003
Fresh from his month-long vacation in relatively cool and comfortable Canada (during which time 10,000 of his countrymen perished in the heat wave back home) Jacques Chirac is back in the saddle and the US is back to having problems with the UN. Allow me to set the stage.
First, the United States offered to provide security for the United Nations mission headquarters in Baghdad. The UN refused, saying they were there on a humanitarian mission and didn’t want the presence of coalition troops to ‘militarize’ their role. Instead, they preferred the familiar faces of the Iraqi guards who used to protect them under Saddam Hussein’s regime.
The ‘guards’ Saddam sent to ‘protect’ foreigners were ALL Iraqi intelligence agents. Even if we didn’t KNOW that for a fact, one would think that somebody at the UN could have figured it out on his own through the process of deductive reasoning.
But the UN trusted the remnant of Saddam’s regime more than it did US forces. Ok.
Until the truck bomber whizzed right by security, positioned itself at exactly the right place, at exactly the right time to make sure UN Envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello would be at his desk when it went off. It did, he was, and Sergio Vieira de Mello was killed.
Immediately after the bomb went off, UN diplomats began screaming, ‘where was our security?’ and blaming the US for not having ignored the UN refusal and surrounding the UN mission with troops anyway. Didn’t the US military understand that when a diplomat says no, it really means yes? Except when it means no? Don’t these guys know anything?
US investigators determined that the Russian-made truck used in the bombing was not registered with the Iraqi government, meaning that it may have entered the country after the war. The Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, said today in New York that the truck had entered the country from Syria.
So the Syrians, who hold the presidency of the UN Security Council at the moment, are linked to the bombing of the UN headquarters building in Baghdad and the death of one of the UN’s rising stars.
UN Secretary Kofi Annan demanded improved security, and backed a US call for member states to send troops to help protect the Iraqi people (as well as UN operations). “We all realize that it is urgent to help bring peace to Iraq, bring peace to the region,” he said. “An Iraq that is destabilized, an Iraq that is in chaos, is not in the interest of the region or the world. And we do have a responsibility to ensure this.”
Not so, say the French. Not unless the French get a big piece of the reconstruction pie in Iraq. France, which led opposition to the war in the United Nations, responded by chiding the United States for failing to build a “genuine” international partnership.
Iraq’s reconstruction requires “the joint mobilization of the entire international community,” French Ambassador Michel Duclos said.
“But that is only possible if the Coalition Provisional Authority acknowledges they could not succeed alone,” he said, using the name for the U.S.-led administration in Iraq.
“To share the burden and the responsibilities in a world of equal and sovereign nations also means sharing information and authority,” the top spokesman for the Axis of Weasels told the world body.
It is important to remember that this newest flap isn’t over the US flaunting some UN ‘directive’ or the US or Israelis responding to some terror attack against their own interests that the UN is debating.
The UN was attacked DIRECTLY. By any conceivable interpretation, the attack was as much against the French as it was any other member state. The symbolism of the attack itself was to serve notice that any member state is a target. Even the French. The attack proved that merely being the world’s Appeaser in Chief is no protection against terror. Opposing Israel in every instance is no protection against terror. Opposing the United States in all things is no protection against terror. The UN has made a practice of doing all this — and Sergio de Mello is dead anyway.
The French have led the appeasement effort in Europe, evidently believing that the terrorists won’t bother them if they do everything they can to make it easier for the terrorists to bother somebody else.
Besides, there are profits to be had, in any case. What terrorists blow up has to be rebuilt. They just want the reconstruction contracts.
The French, Germans and Russians opposed the war because it meant the end of the backroom deals (and the huge profits) that they had with Saddam’s government.
They oppose any UN involvement in rebuilding Iraq unless the UN is in charge — so they can use their influence (and veto) to ensure that the reconstruction contracts go to them.
A spokesman in the German Foreign Ministry said flatly, “Germany will not send soldiers to Iraq.” The Russians and Chinese say that responsibility for security rests with the US, not the global organization that was created expressly for that purpose.
In summary then, the UN, having been the victim of a terrorist attack for the first time in its history, is responding by refusing to do anything to protect itself.
While blaming Washington for not providing protection the UN itself had rejected — until the US pays off certain states by rewarding them for violating UN sanctions for 12 years while they were circumventing the embargo and trading with Iraq.
Leading the charge for the UN to follow this clearly suicidal policy (for UN credibility) are what Donald Rumsfeld called ‘Old Europe’ and the prophet Daniel called Revived Rome. Among the supporting characters are Russia (Gog-Magog) the militant Islamic states of the Middle East and China (the Kings of the East).
It seems odd that nobody at the UN, with all that assembled brainpower, is able to discern the somewhat obvious fact that terrorists are NOT their friends. Even after their headquarters gets blown to smithereens, that simple truth still eludes them.
It makes you wonder what they are smoking in the Security Council chambers, until you take a step back and look at the Big Picture.
And compare it to the Big Picture outlined by the Scriptures for the last days.
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
Then it begins to make sense. Sort of.