|The problems at the United Nations – from the 1975 resolution declaring Zionism a form of racism to the massive oil-for-food scandal that enriched Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (as well as several UN officials and their business associates), to its inaction in genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, to the sexual abuse of locals at the hands of its peacekeepers in west Africa and Kosovo – are widespread and well-known. They are serious enough that even Secretary-General Kofi Annan has claimed the mantle of UN reformer in order that both he and his organization may regain some shred of credibility and moral authority.
It may be too late.
On Sept. 7, the Independent Inquiry Committee, created by Kofi Annan to investigate the oil-for-food scandal, was scathing in its criticism of the United Nations, the Security Council, the oil-for-food program and the secretary-general himself. Led by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, the committee’s report found Annan an ineffective administrator who committed serious failings in terms of oversight and omission. So rather than find Annan a corrupt and venal man, Volcker came to the best possible conclusion: that when it comes to managing the Secretariat of the UN, Annan is merely incompetent. But Annan declared he was exonerated by the Volcker report and defiantly stated he would stay at the helm of the UN.
There is another, less-well-documented scandal at the United Nations, one not examined by the IIC or the subject of numerous criticisms of the UN: the relentless assault on life, family and traditional values at every level of the UN, throughout every agency, regardless of its mission. The most egregious example is the UN Population Fund providing chemical abortifacients and manual abortion devices in refugee camps, as if the most urgent need for displaced persons is the killing of unborn children.
Time and again, the UN has promoted population-control schemes, sought to have abortion declared a universal human right, declared homosexuality normative and limited the rights of parents in the upbringing of their own children.
Kofi Annan, who in 2001 won the Nobel Peace Prize, himself has endorsed abortion. In 2004, he received an award from the International Women’s Health Coalition, a group working for worldwide abortion on demand for women (and girls). Upon receiving the award, Annan said: “I want to pay tribute to the International Women’s Health Coalition for the work it is doing around the globe. The IWHC and its partners provide indispensable leadership for the health and rights of girls and women worldwide. If there were more pioneers like you, the world would be a better place. You are a shining example.” He concluded his comments by calling the staff of IWHC “wonderful partners of the United Nations family.”
As Douglas A. Sylva, then of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, noted, “Annan’s enthusiastic acceptance of the (IWHC) award raises renewed questions about the objectivity of Annan and the UN secretariat, which is responsible for organizing major conferences on international social policy.”
Indeed, during Kofi Annan’s tenure as secretary-general, scarcely is a major international summit called that does not attempt to promote abortion, undermine the rights of parents or advocate measures that would encourage sexual promiscuity.
In 1999, during a special Cairo+5 session, Annan said that “all states” must “incorporate population policies into their development strategy,” because “there is a limit to the pressures our global environment can stand. One form of pressure is the sheer size of the world’s population.” To be clear, Annan sees people as a problem in and of themselves, a problem to be cured with widespread abortion and contraception regardless of national laws and local customs.
In light of the oil-for-food scandal, the Volcker report recommends a thorough overhaul of how the UN, its Security Council and the Secretariat operate. Pedro A. Sanjuan, formerly a high-ranking official at the UN, says in his new book The UN Gang that although most UN reform is difficult, because it requires member states to disregard their immediate national interests, fixing the Secretariat is relatively easy, because it can be done within its own offices. Among Sanjuan’s suggested common-sense and long-overdue reforms is depoliticizing the Secretariat.
That is unlikely to happen under the current leadership. Annan has twice already “reformed” the way the UN works; indeed, Canadian businessman Maurice Strong was his special adviser on UN reform. It obviously did no good. Annan has proved himself an incompetent administrator, but more dangerously, he has demonstrated himself a pro-abortion ideologue.
The oil-for-food scandal may have exposed Kofi Annan as unsuited for the job of secretary-general, but it was his radical anti-life, anti-family views that long ago disqualified him for the UN’s top post.