| |
Conservatives Express Outrage at Award of Nobel Prize to UN
"…we cannot rule out U.N. diplomats or representatives of terrorist regimes communicating instructions to foreign terrorists in the United States," Kincaid said. |
|
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
October 15, 2001
(CNSNews.com) - Conservative groups Friday strongly criticized an announcement by the Nobel Committee that it is awarding this year's prestigious Nobel Peace Prize jointly to the United Nations and its secretary general, Kofi Annan.
"It's totally misplaced and an outrage when the world is rallying to America's side to have someone as anti-American as he is to receive this prize," said Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, in reference to Annan.
"He has been highly critical of our form of government and he has advocated initiatives on the part of the United Nations that would challenge the sovereignty of our country," Weyrich said.
He was also critical of the Bush administration for agreeing to Annan's reappointment this year to a second five-year term as head of the United Nations, an action the United States could have vetoed.
The United Nations and the 63-year-old Ghanaian diplomat will share the prize, which is worth $946,200. The recipients were judged the most deserving from a field of 136 nominees that included Pope John Paul, the European Court of Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Cliff Kincaid, president of America's Survival, a public policy group that monitors U.N. affairs, called the selection "an outrage and a disgrace" because he said, "Annan has been functioning as a foreign agent for some of the worst terrorist regimes."
"He helped broker the deal with Saddam Hussein that resulted in the U.N. weapons inspectors being kicked out of Iraq. Annan also brokered the deal with Moammar Gadhafi of Libya in the Pan Am 103 case, enabling Gadhafi to escape prosecution," he said.
"Intelligence and security experts know that the United Nations is really the most active center in the United States and the world for the activities of terrorists," Kincaid said.
Annan sent a letter to Gadhafi in 1999 promising him immunity from prosecution in return for the Libyan leader's cooperation in the investigation of the bombing of Pan Am 103 in December 1988.
For his part, Gadhafi handed over two Libyan agents, who were tried in The Hague for the bombing which resulted in the deaths of 259 passengers and crew on the plane and an additional 11 people in the village of Lockerbie, Scotland.
"That demonstrates the problem and frankly we cannot rule out U.N. diplomats or representatives of terrorist regimes communicating instructions to foreign terrorists in the United States," Kincaid said.
Many world leaders, including Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, a former recipient, praised the award. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "no one and no organization is more deserving."
The Nobel Committee said it was awarding the prize to the United Nations and Annan for "their work for a better organized and more peaceful world." The end of the Cold War made it possible for the United Nations to play a fuller role, the committee said.
The Institute on Religion and Public Policy praised the Nobel Committee's decision to award the prize to Annan, who "has provided exceptional moral leadership both within the United Nations and around the world."
Annan "succeeded in trying to define a new agenda for the United Nations, stressing human rights and hounding rich countries to open their markets to poorer nations," the institute said in a statement.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, he has taken an active role against terrorism. On the one-month anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Annan called on the U.N. member states to "provide a common legal framework for all 189 states to pursue the fight and struggle against terrorism" during a town hall meeting with 10 U.S. cities.
Dr. Frank Burd, president of the Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs, said Annan and the United Nations will have a part to play with the United States in the war against terrorism and its aftermath.
"The United States can bring a focus to this immediate campaign, which the United Nations cannot. It is too diffuse an organization to act with the kind of coherence that's required, either in military action or in very vigorous diplomacy," Burd said.
On the other hand, the United Nations brings legitimacy to the effort, allowing a lot of people to act who couldn't act if it were merely a coalition with the United States, he said.
"So down the road one can imagine, if American policy is successful and if the Taliban regime collapses in Afghanistan ... a kind of temporary trusteeship or oversight with whatever temporary government emerges in Afghanistan, and I think the U.N. could be very constructive in that role," Burd said.
Annan's past performance in Mideast diplomacy suggests he is qualified to continue to play a positive part in coalition building and peacemaking, he said.
"His thinking obviously is larger than just the immediate, and he does have a sense of ultimate resolution of things, and it's not merely an appeasement kind of approach, but a sense [that] ultimately you have to get forces in balance and you have to get aspirations in balance," Burd concluded.
| | |