Can Kofi Annan Do Business with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? 

By Aaron Goldsteinmailto:jillian_writes@yahoo.com
January 15, 2006
American Daily
Original Source: http://www.americandaily.com/article/11241


The United States and Europe have been at odds with one another over the past few years, especially concerning Iraq. However, it appears that the United States and Europe are on the same page with respect to Iran’s desire to build a nuclear weapon. 

Last week, Iran broke the seals placed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the nuclear plant in Natanz and have resumed enriching uranium, a key component in developing a nuclear weapon.

The EU expressed “serious concern” with this “unilateral” act and called upon Iran to “suspend nuclear related activities”. According to the EU, Iran’s “resumption of activities and such disregard for the repeated wishes of the IAEA Board of Governors seriously jeopardizes the possibility of a return to negotiations.” British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw added, “There was no good reason why Iran should have taken this step if its intentions are truly peaceful and it wanted to resolve longstanding international concerns.”

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said that Iran’s decision to break the seals at Natanz “demonstrates that it has chosen confrontation with the international community over cooperation and negotiation.” Echoing Straw’s sentiments, Rice stated, “There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment.”

So let’s be clear here. Both the United States and the European Union view Iran’s actions as an indication that it does not wish to negotiate in this matter and that it ought to be referred to the UN Security Council.

But this view is not shared by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. While Annan is “extremely concerned” by Iran’s actions he does not support a referral to the UN Security Council until “all other possibilities are exhausted.” Annan stated that he spoke with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on the phone for 40 minutes and that Larijani is “interested in serious and constructive negotiations but within a timeframe, indicating that the last time they did it for 2½ years and no result.”

Gee, I wonder why there was no result? Could it be because Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon and is not negotiating in good faith.

Undeterred, Annan has offered his “good offices” to resolve the matter. The same “good offices” that brought us the Oil for Food Scandal. I guess that’s what Annan means by “all other possibilities exhausted.” But why ought the world be surprised? After all, Annan said that Saddam Hussein was a man he “could do business with” and boy did he ever do business with Saddam. If Annan could be so congenial with Saddam why not with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Because let’s face it, Larijani does Ahmadinejad’s bidding. Larijani might speak with Annan on the phone but it is Ahmadinejad that is doing the talking.

So why does Kofi Annan insist that the Iranians want to negotiate when both the U.S. and the E.U. have concluded otherwise? Because Kofi Annan is “extremely concerned” with the legacy of Kofi Annan. At the end of this year, Annan will leave office. And how would he be remembered? As the man who failed in Rwanda and Bosnia while in charge of UN Peacekeeping Operations. As the man who presided over the Oil for Food Scandal and allowed Saddam, mostly Russian, German and French businesses and corrupt UN officials to profit while Iraqis received substandard foods and medicines. As the man who abandoned the Iraqi people after their headquarters were attacked by terrorist insurgents. As the man who fiddled while millions died in the Sudan while Sudan sits on the UN Human Rights Commission. As the man who looked the other way while young girls were being raped by UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

Kofi Annan needs a win. Achieving a negotiated settlement with Iran would be a feather in his cap. He could go out on top. I would not be surprised if Annan would successfully achieve a negotiated settlement with the Iranians. Of course, it would not be worth the paper on which it is printed. After all, former President Jimmy Carter negotiated an agreement with North Korean President Kim Jong Il to stop processing nuclear fuel in 1994. Last year, the North Koreans revealed that they had never stopped processing nuclear fuel. If the President of North Korea wasn’t amenable to refraining from his nuclear ambitions why would the President of Iran, who wants a world without Israel, be any more amenable? 

Whatever is informing Kofi Annan’s thinking it is clear that he is not only not on the same page with the United States and the EU but that he is reading an entirely different book altogether. Possibly Alice in Wonderland. 

The world cannot sit by and pin its hopes on the UN Secretary General having some Kofi talk with a madman. The time has come for Kofi Annan to get out of the way and let the UN Security Council discuss Iran’s actions and impose sanctions against it.