Crosblog

Bad headline puns - one more reason to love blogs.

The American Prospect is posting a liberal debate on whether or not Kofi Annan should go, with Michael Steinberger offering to help him pack, and Ian Williams offering to bear his children. (I'm kidding. Steinberger says he can do his own damn packing.) Both men share the belief that right wing criticism of the U.N. is disingenous partisan hackery designed to shield conservative disrespect for multilateral institutions, but other than that, hey, they have at it. Cool. Steinberger cites four reasons to turf Kofi: The oil-for-food scandal, which, even if it's not the greatest scandal in history, or whatever hacks like me are calling it these days, is still pretty bad, and calls the U.N.'s credibility into question, Darfur, sexual abuse in the Congo, and Kofi's shutting down an internal investigation into sexual harassment by high-level U.N. staffers.

Steinberger's best line:

Defending Annan is not the same thing as defending the United Nations; indeed, to defend Annan at this point is to defend someone whose mismanagement has done grievous harm to the United Nations and to the cause of liberal internationalism.

What he said. Williams actually defends Kofi on the Sudan, although if I'm reading him correctly, he says the real problem is Bush not acting on the Sudan like he did on Iraq, which is an odd thing for a Nation writer to say, but hey, I'm a warmonger, I'll buy it. He minimizes Oil-For-Food for like the nineteenth time, concluding that anyone who talks like its bad is either:

A.) A right-wing shill, or

B.) Trying to placate right-wing shills.

About the U.N. turning a blind eye to sexual abuse that seems to routinely pop up where the U.N. is involved, Williams offers nothing. And then, of course, he concludes with his real defense:

They are not attacking Annan; they are attacking any form of multilateralism, whether the Land Mine Treaty, non-proliferation, the International Criminal Court, or even the Geneva Conventions (all of which he has publicly supported). They were not even attacking the oil-for-food program; they were attacking an organization that dared to say no -- or, at least, refused to say yes -- to Bush's war on Iraq.

It matters not whether the allegations are true - it matters that I really, really, really don't like the people who have publicized them.

Today's post is the first of a three-part debate, with part two appearing Wednesday.