Why Is This Man Still in Charge?
No, I haven’t suddenly turned a 180 on Bush: I’m talking about Kofi Annan. We’ve seen far more than enough evidence that he was complicit (or at the very least, incredibly negligent) in the $12 billion fraud that was perpetrated on the Iraqi people (and now the U.N. says we owe Iraq “millions” – add three zeroes, then spin and point in the mirror).
Here’s Kofi, though, again carrying the water for the anti-U.S. elements of the world, by attacking our continued stewardship of the Internet:
The United States deserves our thanks for having developed the Internet and made it available to the world. For historical reasons, the United States has the ultimate authority over some of the Internet’s core resources. It is an authority that many say should be shared with the international community. The United States, which has exercised its oversight responsibilities fairly and honorably, recognizes that other governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns, and that efforts to make the governance arrangements more international should continue.
Of course, the United States recognizes no such thing, and Kofi knows it; we’re bitterly opposed to this naked power grab, as we should be.
The context for all this, and a sign of what a UN-controlled Internet would bring, is a meeting in Tunis, that beacon of human rights, regarding other nations’ claims on the Internet infrastructure that they did nothing at all to develop and much to thwart. Kofi concludes:
Everyone acknowledges the need for more international participation in discussions of Internet governance. The disagreement is over how to achieve it. So let’s set aside fears of U.N. “designs” on the Internet. Much as some would like to open up another front of attack on the United Nations, this dog of an argument won’t bark. I urge all stakeholders to come to Tunis ready to bridge the digital divide and ready to build an open, inclusive information society that enriches and empowers all people.
Again, Kofi thinks we are so ignorant that we will just blindly accept his assertion that ‘everyone acknowledges the need for more international participation’.
In fact, I would bet that if you asked 1 million people from around the globe to rank the following list in terms of how well each item fulfills its promise, the Internet would be cited by 999, 382 of them (the other 618 being UN employees):
1. The UN
2. Your country’s government
3. Health care
4. Insurance
5. Transportation
6. The EU
7. The Internet
In fact, it sometimes seems the Internet is the only thing that does exactly what it is supposed to do, and no one is shut out that doesn’t want to be (economic considerations aside – I’m talking politically shut out by US control of the underlying infrastructure). It is Kofi’s latest ‘internationalist’ adventure that will not hunt (not bark, Kofi – bone up on your folksy sayings a little)…
As usual, a Kofi speech is long on generalities and short on specifics. For example, exactly how would international control of the Internet change things? I’ve a feeling that if it was allowed the first thing we’d hear is a proposal to limit Internet cultural imperialism, otherwise known as freedom of speech.
Aside from the usual arguments against cedeing control or sovereignty (of anything) to the international community that is the U.N., I would re-assert the argument that any organization that accepts everyone that wants to join is not worth being a member of, and, certainly not worth allowing control or responsibility – for anything. Interesting that most often Kofi is arguing for the former without any commitment to the latter.
RINO sightings
Get out your binoculars and focus: The RINOs have been sighted.