Annan’s Latest Pandering to Ruthless Dictators — This Time in Beijing — Shows U.N. is Not a ‘Smart Investment’ in Our Security

(Washington, D.C.): Since March, the Better World Campaign — an organization created
and
funded by Ted Turner — has been spending millions of dollars in a highly misleading, but now
successful, effort to persuade the Congress to appropriate monies “owed” the United Nations. ¹
During the past seven months, the Turner campaign has produced and broadcast no fewer than
seventeen television commercials and numerous print advertisements, many of which feature
variations on the theme that “the UN is a smart investment” for the United States since
“[although] the UN can be frustrating, it works” in “resolving conflicts, confronting terrorism,
preventing world war. The UN continues to work in America’s interests in dangerous and distant
places around the world.”

With Friends Like the UN…

Unfortunately, in at least some of those dangerous and distant places, the United
Nations is
decidedly not working in America’s interests or, for that matter, in the interests of
“confronting
terrorism” and “preventing war.” For example, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told reporters
after meeting with China’s Foreign Minister Tang Xiaxuan in Beijing yesterday that, “I think I
leave here with a better understanding of some of the issues involved [in the PRC’s brutal
crackdown on the Falun Gong movement. Mr. Tang had assured him] that in dealing with this
issue, the fundamental rights of citizens will be respected and some of the actions they
are
taking are for the protection of individuals.”

The New York Times reported today however, that:

“This morning, shortly before Mr. Annan’s meeting with Mr. Tang, more than a dozen
Falun Gong adherents were detained in Tiananmen Square as they unfurled a red
banner and began their ritual exercises, which are said to bring good health and
spiritual salvation. Groups of believers from at least five regions of China have
reportedly sent Mr. Annan letters asking for an official inquiry into why China has
branded the group an illegal, ‘evil cult.’

“But in his brief public remarks today, Mr. Annan was clearly loath to offend
China — a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.”

The Times then described the lengths to which the UN Secretary General
kow-towed to his
hosts: “Mr. Annan offered United Nations help in strengthening the government’s legal
procedures to deal with the Falun Gong problem ‘in accordance with international
norms,’
Mr. Almeidae Silva [Annan’s spokesman] said. Mr. Tang gave no response, he said.”

Deja Vu All Over Again

Kofi Annan’s revolting efforts to curry favor with despotic hosts — in this case, by
legitimating
Chinese repression of a sect seeking the opportunity to practice the basic human right of freedom
of religion — is all too reminiscent of an earlier, appalling spectacle: the Secretary General’s
effort to “resolve conflicts” between Saddam Hussein and the rest of the world in February 1998,
by treating with legitimacy the ruthless and bloodthirsty Iraqi dictator.

At the time, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott properly castigated the
Secretary General’s
pathetic diplomacy: “Let’s look at what [Secretary General Annan] has said. ‘Saddam
can be
trusted.’ ‘I think I can do business with [Saddam].’ ‘I think [Saddam] was serious.’
These
are all direct quotes. The Secretary General told reporters he spent the weekend building a
‘human relationship’ with Saddam Hussein …. These comments are outrageous. They
reflect
someone bent on appeasement — not someone determined to make the United Nations
inspection regime [in Iraq] work effectively.” ²

The Bottom Line

While the Congress and President Clinton finally came to terms that allowed America’s UN
“arrearages” to be cleaned up, there is little likelihood that the Better World Campaign, or others
who subscribe to its multilateralist impulses and agenda, will cease their efforts to promote the
United Nations as a reliable tool for U.S. security in “an unstable world.” The truth of the
matter, however, is that, at least under its present leadership — and arguably under any
foreseeable alternative, given the nature of the organization — the UN is, at best,
an unreliable
substitute for effective American military power and sovereignty. More likely,
it will
actively seek to constrain and subvert both.

¹ The extent of the United States’ actual indebtedness is debatable.
Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Chris Smith (R-NJ) have correctly observed that the U.S.
could be considered a
“deadbeat” with respect to the UN only if it is given no credit for billions of dollars worth of
“voluntary” contributions it has made in recent years to the organization’s myriad peacekeeping,
humanitarian and other operations. See Center Decision Brief entitled Credit Where It Is Due
On U.S. Financial Support For The U.N (No. 99-D
122, 21 October 1999).

² See Center Decision Brief entitled
This Is The Time To ‘Bash’ — Or At Least Repudiate —
The U.N.; Bipartisan, Bicameral Consensus Emerges That Saddam Must Go ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-D_36″>No. 98-D 36, 26
February 1998).