More recently, I noted how Annan did not wish the UN Hariri probe to fan any flames of anger. I quoted Annan from a cited article:
"I know there has been lots of political commentary and lots of discussions about it but from where I sit, I'm determined to make it as technical as possible and not allow a politicization of the process," Annan said.
It was not out of bounds to question whether Annan was running interference for yet another Baathist dictator. Now we know what making the report "as technical as possible" means (via Strategypage). That Annan was "determined" is quite the understatement:
THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.
The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.
The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.
The mistaken release of the unedited report added further support to the published conclusion that Syria was behind Mr Hariri’s assassination in a bomb blast on Valentine’s Day in Beirut. The murder of Mr Hariri touched off an international outcry and hastened Syria’s departure from Lebanon in April after a 29-year pervasive military presence.
I wonder if anybody will be looking into direct Annan interference to avoid fanning flames or the exertion of undue pressure based on public statements or indirect contacts. Somebody removed the most damningly specific information to keep the report "as technical as possible." Could the reputation of the UN be tarnished by this episode?
Don't be silly. If Kofi Annan--the keeper of the hallowed legitimacy of the vaunted international community--says that doctoring a report to keep the full truth from coming out is not political and perfectly acceptable, who are we mere mortals to say otherwise? All hail Annan.
The UN has been dragged to condemn Syria and the UN's sloppiness has helped us get the details of Syria's complicity in trying to extend their illegal and immoral occupation of Lebanon. And while the UN has not seemed to care about other Syrian efforts to wage war on others, we now have more than enough reasons to put real pressure on Damascus to stop inciting and enabling terrorism. And we've finally got a reason that even Europeans can be upset about:
Now that the U.N. has implicated Syria in Hariri's death and appears to be on the way to establishing a case against Shawkat -- the chief U.N. investigator, Detlev Mehlis, has been given two more months to complete his work -- the Security Council must do everything in its power to bring political and economic sanctions to bear against Syria. Syria has been able to avoid any sort of U.N. censure for funding and providing missiles to the Hezbollah to attack Israel and for supporting our enemies in Iraq -- two issues that generally don't stir up a lot of outrage among the U.N. nabobs.
The corruption of the UN is complete. Barring evidence that the Syrian regime paid off Kofi to go easy on him, we now know that Annan's UN will protect thug regimes for free now. So what if that thug regime has conquered and run for thirty years a sovereign member of the international community? In time, regime change at Turtle Bay must be our objective, too.
Saddam may want to request a refund from Annan before then.
