One of the primary functions of the United Nations Secretary-General is to help resolve international disputes, which implies the duty to defend the UN charter. The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, recently stated to the BBC World Service about the current war in Iraq:
"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Many around the world including the 1.2 Billion Muslims will be asking why Mr Annan did not state this clearly before the conflict! Why did he not help to mobilise other nations of the UN in order to defend Iraq, therefore, prevent the violation of the UN charter? Does the UN have any form of accountability to the 1.2 Billion Muslims, which it is supposed to be representing through the member states, or does the UN respond only to the Power-Point presentations given by Colin Powell, which subsequently proved to be another lie in a catalogue of lies?
If the US-led invasion was illegal and violated the UN charter then surely it means the Mr Kofi Annan should call for the following: demand war reparations to be paid to Iraq; declare the invasion as a war crime; call for the immediate release of Saddam Hussein and all the other prisoners held in captivity; lay down a time table for the removal of all foreign troops illegally occupying a sovereign nation.
Finally, the measures needed for punishing the US and its coalition partners for violating the UN charter. This is really important as a real test of the integrity and fairness of an organisation is when it is able to demonstrate the rule of law; bring the rich and the powerful to its submission as well as the poor and the weak. Since 1945, the US has been bombing countries after countries without declaring war, without UN authorisation, acts that clearly constitute terrorism at the highest level.
The actions and the structure of the UN body seems to reflect a slave market, rather than an international organisation. Where the poorer nations are the slaves and the richer nations are the merchants. The most powerful merchants have formed the permanent Security Council club. Their role is to police the slave market when a dispute arises between the merchants.
As for the slaves they have virtually no rights so any complaints from them is usually ignored. They are in fact ranked lower than animals. So, if they are killed in large numbers there is no moral indignation or outrage or any kind of urgency to protect the slave nations, Rwandan genocide is a prime example. In contrast, great deal of resources are mobilised by the merchant nations to protect the animals as it happened after the first Gulf war. You see them weeping on television whilst ignoring their war machines that ripped the heads of the babies in Iraq.
These slave traders in line with the great tradition of the civilised world feed the disobedient slaves to the beasts on two legs awaiting in the dungeons of Abu-Ghraib, Camp-X-Ray, Bagram. The entire event is filmed for to the spectators as a source of entertainment, gets televised in the modern day coliseum theatre of the Television and other high-tech media.
Some of these slave traders offer protection services in return for a small fee. They are also aided by the international financial institutions which functions like the money lending Shylocks, helps to maintain the grip over the poorer nations, exploit their resources. Then the merchant nations ‘weep’ over the suffering of the slaves by holding the annual fund-raising event on TV, all designed to lighten the guilt.
Mr Annan is a good candidate to serve as an intermediary; he has good knowledge of the slaves as he was raised amongst them. Malcolm-X called such people a house-nigger; in the Indian subcontinent they were known as ‘Coolies’ or ‘Ghulams’ and in the Arab world they are known as ‘Munafiqueen’.
The extreme sections of the Moderate-Muslims (neo-mods) are also functioning in a similar manner. As each one line up to condemn the retaliation from the resistance movement whilst turning a blind eye to the naked unprovoked aggression inflicted upon the Islamic world. They have tears for the belligerent invaders but none for the innocents killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. You see them line to condemn the beheadings of a few aggressor in retaliation whilst deafening silence to the beheading of thousands using high-tech weapons.
These types of people often excel their masters in order to prove their loyalty and worth. Mr Annan certainly did that over Iraq and in Rwanda during the genocide in 1994. He was the head of the peacekeeping mission in Rwanda at that time and he held back UN troops from intervening to settle the conflict and from providing more logistic and material support. Which was in line with the US stance on Rwanda, no surprises there.
Between April 7 to April 21 in 1994, 250,00 Tutsi were killed by the Hutus, a clear genocide, which compels the UN to intervene under international law. In order to avoid sending troops Bill Clinton buried the information to justify its inaction. Secretary of State Warren Christopher and his UN ambassador Madeleine Albright instructed their staff to avoid using the word "genocide" and deliberately thwarted any other moves to define the massacres in Rwanda as genocide.
And after the genocide started, Annan oversaw the reduction of the peacekeeping force from 2,500 to 450. The UN Security Council unanimously voted to withdraw its troops, with France and Belgium at the forefront, over the protests of the peacekeepers’ top commander Canadian Romeo Dallaire. Finally, on May 17, 1994, the UN conceded that "acts of genocide may have been committed."
Clinton apologised later and Annan got promoted for his services. He received a second term in office which was not supposed to happen as the previous UN Secratery was Boutrous Ghali, another African, who already served a single term. Each continenet is supposed to get a maximum of two terms before rotation. Kofi Annan was also awarded the nobel peace prize, his role in the genocide in Rwanada was forgotten.