What could possibly make the Lebanon situation worse today than
it was yesterday? Only yesterday the hapless Israeli defense
minister, Amir Peretz, said that Israel expected the “international
community” to take control of Lebanon’s border crossings. Peretz’s
pointless whine was in response to UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan’s statement on Saturday that the new UN force in Lebanon
won’t either disarm Hizballah terrorists or try to interdict
shipments of weapons to Hizballah from Syria. But what Peretz said
changed nothing. The Son of UNIFIL force won’t do anything to
inconvenience Hizballah or its Syrian and Iranian suppliers.
But yes, today, things are worse. Kofi Annan is in Lebanon. He’s
on a grand tour of the Middle East, with other stops to be made in
Damascus, Tehran, and wherever else His Excellency the SecGen goes.
Kofi is laboring manfully to improve history’s judgment of his
performance in office which now would fairly place him somewhere
below Boss Tweed and above Jimmy Carter. To accomplish that
elevation, Annan will reprise his performance of 1998.
For those who forgive and forget too quickly, Annan — without
the sanction of the Security Council — took it upon himself to
visit Baghdad in February 1998. There he met with Saddam Hussein
and negotiated away the inspection regimen that Amb. Richard
Butler, then chief UN arms inspector in Iraq, had fought to
maintain. Annan excluded Butler and his team from meetings in which
Annan negotiated a “memorandum of understanding” with Saddam’s
foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, which placed unworkable restrictions
on Butler’s team and doomed the inspections to failure. (The whole
“MOU” is reprinted beginning on page 141 of Butler’s book, The
Greatest Threat.)
Let’s be clear about what happened. Annan visited Saddam and
gave away the terms of the inspections that had been established by
UN Security Council resolution. He acted on his own authority,
which, as Secretary General, under the UN Charter, he doesn’t have.
He took it upon himself to act contrary to the wishes of the member
nations, and contravened their decisions. When he was done, he
announced that Saddam was a man, “I can do business with.” Bill
Clinton didn’t renounce Annan’s “MOU,” and Saddam soon after threw
the UN inspectors out altogether. Kofi Annan was in charge, not the
members of the Security Council.
Annan’s trip comes at a fortuitous time. For our enemies, at
least. August 31 — Thursday — is the UN’s deadline for Iran to
cease enriching uranium. Annan is scheduled to arrive two days
later. Ahmadinejad and the mullahs have already said they won’t to
stop uranium enrichment and are pushing ahead with their nuke
program. Appearing at the commencement of a “new phase” of
operation at Iran’s (probably) plutonium-capable heavy water
reactor a few days ago, Ahmadinejad said, “No one can deprive a
nation of its rights based on its capabilities.” (A curious
formulation. If capabilities create rights, why shouldn’t we or the
Israelis obliterate him and the rest of the Iranian
kakistocracy?)
Annan will follow his established routine. He will “negotiate”
with Ahmadinejad and reach understandings contrary to Security
Council resolutions. He’ll establish a “good working relationship”
with Ahmadinejad, and return to New York suggesting that despite
the August 31 deadline it is premature to impose sanctions against
Iran. He will, predictably, call for resuming talks unconditionally
with Iran, echoing Tehran’s suggestion of “serious” negotiations.
Will President Bush move quickly to disavow Annan’s actions and
insist on UN action? If he intended to control events, why did he
allow Annan’s trip to begin without issuing a stern warning against
giving in?
The Sunday Times of London said of Iran yesterday:
“These Muslim revolutionaries have transformed international
politics and the West is still struggling to deal with them. This
would be farcical if it were not so fraught with danger.” That
transformation occurred in 1979. It is farcical for
President Bush to allow Annan to act independently again. We
expected that of John Kerry, but were assured time and again that
George Bush would never subordinate U.S. foreign policy to the UN.
For conservatives, this may be the last straw that opens an
unbreachable gap with President Bush. It may become an open revolt
if Annan cuts a deal with Iran and the president doesn’t openly
disavow it and press on to deny Iran nuclear weapons.
Kofi won’t come back before accomplishing other political
mischief designed to protect terrorist-sponsoring nations.
We should all be grateful for the release of Fox News reporter
Steve Centanni and his cameraman Olaf Wiig. But don’t expect Kofi
to proclaim the need to protect reporters. When he visits Mahmoud
Abbas, the PA chief, he’ll praise the Palestinians for their
wonderful work in freeing the kidnapped journalists. In Beirut,
he’ll hold the Lahoud government up as a model of democracy,
despite the fact that Hizballah controls part outright, and holds
the rest hostage. And he’ll call upon the world for a great
outpouring of aid to rebuild Lebanon. There will be no mention of
protecting northern Israel from rocket attacks or rebuilding
Israeli towns. Where else will he go and what other damage will he
do? It staggers the mind.
TAS contributing editor Jed Babbin is the author
of Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe Are
Worse Than You Think (Regnery, 2004) and, with Edward
Timperlake, Showdown: Why China Wants War With the United
States (Regnery, May 2006 — click here to obtain a free chapter).
