Kofi's latest move

While some movement is finally taking place in Europe, Kofi "Please don't" Annan opposes referring the Iran case to the U.N. Security Council. In return, he suddenly suggests to get more engaged in Darfur, Sudan. According to Kofi, the Iranians want to discuss about the nukes. Oh yeah, right, big joke. Like they have been doing for two and a half years now? Darfur is of course the place where a U.N. commission decided last year that no genocide was taking place as the U.S. alleged - for lack of genocidal intent. If that commission had found that a genocide was perpetrated, it's very likely that the "international community" would have been forced to act in consequence and to intervene. Now, don't take me wrong, I do think that what was happening in Darfur exceeded the limit of what is tolerable - by far. But this was already true in January 2005. I'd like to know why Kofi suggests right now to engage in Sudan. What has changed so much to justify an outside intervention? In my humble opinion, it is evident: Kofi wants to distract from Iran, which he considers too big a piece of meat for his beloved "Organization". He doesn't want to be "haunted and bothered" again by a second crisis in the U.N. (I don't think he feels as many sympathies for the crazy mollahs as for Palestinian terrorists). He therefore prefers to use this tactical move and to focus on the much weaker Sudan: "We need to get the (Sudan) government to work with us in bringing in an expanded force with troops from outside Africa, because until recently it has maintained that it will only accept African troops," Annan told reporters. "But I think we have gone beyond that now."(...) "At this stage, we have started contingency planning to be ready if and when the decision is taken for us to go in," Annan said. "As you know, the killings are going on, the rapes are going on." Annan said any new force would have to be a mobile one with tactical air support, helicopters and "the ability to respond very quickly." Wow, that suddenly sounds determinated. Has he turned into some kind of neo-con? In fact, that's old tactics of course. If you don't want your counterpart to concentrate or act on one thing then suggest him something else, do everything to draw or divert his attention to another thing and hope he forgets about the initial issue. Or have his public opinion force him to do so. Kofi, I can only repeat myself: It's really time for Kofi to retire and write his memoirs on how he wanted to "prevent the war". I will of course buy the book and put it in my bookshelf, next to Neville Chamberlain's "How to become a historical failure for Dummies". english / Politique / Mideast