April 2, 2012
By Thierry Meyssan
Although Kofi Annan’s track record at the UN is an indisputable success in terms of management and efficiency, he has been sharply criticized for his political shortcomings. As Secretary General, he aspired to bring the Organization into line with the unipolar world and the globalization of U.S. hegemony. He called into question the ideological foundations of the UN and undermined its ability to prevent conflicts. Notwithstanding, he is today in charge of resolving the Syrian crisis.
Former UN Secretary General and Nobel Peace Prize, Kofi Annan, has been designated by Ban Ki-moon and Nabil El Arabi as joint special envoy to negotiate a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis. With Annan’s extraordinary experience and shiny brand image, his appointment was welcomed by all.
What does this top international official really represent? Who propelled him to the highest-ranking positions? What were his political choices, and what are his current commitments? These questions are met with a discreet silence, as if his previous functions were in themselves a guarantee of neutrality.
His former colleagues praise him for his thoughtfulness, his intelligence and subtlety. A very charismatic personality, Kofi Annan left a strong imprint behind him because he did not behave simply as the “secretary” of the UN, but more like its “general,” by taking initiatives that revivified an organization that was mired in bureaucracy. All that is known and has been repeated ad nauseam. His exceptional professional qualities earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, although this honor in theory should have been bestowed for personal political commitment, not a management career.
Kofi and his twin sister Efua Atta were born on 8 April 1938, into an aristocratic family of the British colony of the Gold Coast. His father was the tribal chief of the Fante people and the elected governor of Asante province. Although he opposed British rule, he was a faithful servant of the Crown. With other notables, he took part in the first decolonization movement, but looked upon the revolutionary fervor of Kwame Nkrumah with suspicion and anxiety.
In any event, Nkrumah’s efforts led to the independence of the country in 1957 under the name of Ghana. Kofi was then 19 years old. Though not involved in the revolution, he became vice-president of the new National Student Association. It was then that he was spotted by a headhunter from the Ford Foundation who incorporated him into a program for “young leaders.” From there, he was invited to follow a summer course at Harvard University. Having noticed his enthusiasm for the United States, the Ford Foundation offered to sponsor his complete studies, first in economics at Macalester College in Minnesota, followed by international relations at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva.
After the Second World War, the Ford Foundation, created by famous industrialist Henry Ford, became an unofficial instrument of U.S. foreign policy, providing a respectable facade for the activities of the CIA.
Kofi Annan’s overseas study period (1959-1961) coincided with the most difficult years of the African-American civil rights movement (the start of Martin Luther King’s Birmingham campaign). He saw it as an extension of the decolonization he had witnessed in Ghana, but once again did not get involved.
Impressed with Annan’s academic achievements and political discretion, his U.S. mentors opened for him the doors of the World Health Organization, where he landed his first job. After three years at WHO headquarters in Geneva, he was appointed to the Economic Commission for Africa based in Addis Ababa. However, not sufficiently qualified to pursue a career at the UN, he returned to the United States to take up management studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (1971-1972). He then attempted a comeback in his home country as director of tourism development, but found himself perpetually at odds with the military government of General Acheampong; he gave up and returned to the United Nations in 1976.
There, he held various positions, initially within UNEF II (the peacekeeping emergency force established to supervise the cease fire between Egypt and Israel at the end of the October 1973 war), then as Director of personnel at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). It was at this time that he met and married Nane Lagergren Master, his second wife. The Swedish lawyer is the niece of Raoul Wallenberg, Sweden’s special envoy in Budapest during World War II. Wallenberg is famous for having saved hundreds of persecuted Jews by issuing them protective passports. He also worked for the OSS (forerunner of today’s CIA) as a liaison with the Hungarian resistance. He disappeared at the end of the war, when the Soviets allegedly captured him to stem US influence in the country. In any event, Kofi Annan’s successful marriage opened the doors that he could not have passed through on his own, especially those of Jewish organizations.
Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar chose Kofi Annan as Assistant Secretary-General in charge of human resources management and staff safety and security (1987-90). With the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq, 900 UN employees remained stranded in that country. Kofi Annan was able to negotiate their release with Saddam Hussein, a feat that boosted his prestige within the Organization. He was then successively put in charge of the budget (1990-92) and peacekeeping operations under Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1993-96), with a brief interlude as a special envoy for Yugoslavia.
According to Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, commander of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, Kofi Annan failed to respond to his many appeals and carries the primary responsibility for UN inaction during the genocide (800,000 dead, mainly Tutsis, but also Hutu opponents).
A similar scenario was repeated in Bosnia, where 400 peacekeepers were taken hostage by Bosnian Serb forces. Kofi Annan remained deaf to the calls of General Bernard Janvier and allowed the perpetration of predictable massacres.
In late 1996, the United States vetoed the reappointment of the Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali as Secretary General, regarded as dangerously Francophile. They succeeded in imposing their candidate: a senior official from within the international organization itself, Kofi Annan. Far from playing against him, his failures in Rwanda and Bosnia blossomed into assets after he candidly confessed to them and promised to reform the system so that they wouldn’t recur. He was elected on this basis and took office on 1 January 1997.
October 19, 2011
By Kurt Nimmo
Prior to the worldwide OWS-inspired protests on October 15, a group of prominent leftists “issued a manifesto that includes a strong call for global democracy and, in particular, democratic rule over the international financial system,” reports UNPA Campaign.
UNPA is short for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, “a global network of parliamentarians and non-governmental organizations advocating citizen’s representation at the United Nations,” according to their website.
UNPA is likely a project launched indirectly by the CIA and the folks who brought the world numerous color revolutions resulting in military dictatorship (as it did in Egypt) and “humanitarian” bloodbaths (like NATO’s operation in Libya).
While primary contributions to UNPA’s work come from campaign participants, the organization also receives money from the Ford Foundation.
Since the 1950s, the Ford Foundation has worked closely with the CIA to fund and control leftist cultural and political activities.
“The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source. From the early 1950s to the present the CIA’s intrusion into the foundation field was and is huge,” writes James Petras.
Ana Sofia Suarez and Shimri Zameret, writing for The Guardian on October 14, characterized the UNPA supported manifesto as “a vision for a new global governance” and “a movement for global democracy.”
Instead of calling for abolishing globalist networks such as the IMF, the WTO, multinational banks, the G8/G20, the European Central Bank and the UN security council, the manifesto calls for “democratizing” them.
“Undemocratic international institutions are our global Mubarak, our global Assad, our global Gaddafi,” the document declares. “Like Mubarak and Assad, these institutions must not be allowed to run people’s lives without their consent. We are all born equal, rich or poor, woman or man. Every African and Asian is equal to every European and American. Our global institutions must reflect this, or be overturned.”
Supporters of the text, including Naomi Klein, Vandana Shiva, Michael Hardt, Noam Chomsky, and Eduardo Galeano, say “our global institutions” must be democratized or overturned. They accept that “more than ever before, global forces shape people’s lives” and “citizens of the world must get control over the decisions that influence them in all levels – from global to local. That is global democracy. That is what we demand today.”
It should be noted that the manifesto was not produced by the Ford Foundation funded UNPA and the CIA, but its enthusiastic reception by the organization is highly suspicious.
As the video below demonstrates, the call for “global democracy” – a term now interchangeable with “global governance” – was accepted by at least some of the OWS people in Los Angeles.
OWS supporters in the United States should not be calling for “global democracy” – in other words, surrendering national sovereignty for globalist micromanaged mob rule – but should be calling instead for the end of the Federal Reserve, a return to honest money not controlled by the global elite and the international bankers, and the reinstitution of a constitutionally limited republic as originally envisioned by the founders.
If the larger OWS accepts “global federalism” it will be accepting the agenda outlined by the very global elite responsible for the Federal Reserve, the IMF, the WTO, global markets, multinational banks, the G8/G20, the European Central Bank and the UN security council criticized in the manifesto published in the establishment newspaper, The Guardian .
The OWS represents both a threat and opportunity for the globalists. It is imperative that they compromise the movement and sell it on a bait-and-switch version of global totalitarianism masquerading as change – the same brand offered by the Goldman Sachs crony Obama – under the guise of “democracy.”