Good-bye, Kofi Annan.   We're sure to remember you but extremely happy to be finished with your term.   There's nothing you can say which will make us feel otherwise.   But we expect we'll see all sorts of your opinions on the evening news the same way Cigar Bill Clinton is regularly consulted as an expert on everything.   But we'll not forget the ineptness with which you did your job.   We heard you yesterday try to defend your record but we take exception to several of your comments.

In your farewell speech, you said:

"I would just like, though, to acknowledge the magnificent announcement by the Spanish Prime Minister yesterday, that Spain is donating $700 million to the effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.   This is the largest contribution yet made to the UN for this purpose by any country, and I believe it is a splendid example of international solidarity which I hope other members will follow."

Is that the very same Spain which while pledging $60 million towards tsunami relief, only managed to deliver $1 million of it in the two years since?

You also said:

"I'm particularly anxious that there be no break in our handling of the continuing crisis in Darfur."

Is that because you feel the UN, under you, has done any work worth mentioning?   Is it the hundred witness statements the UN has managed to collect or the 50 plus suspects against whom the UN hopes to bring charges for the murder of hundreds of thousands and uprooting of more than two million?   Or are you proud of being called a handmaiden of genocide including Darfur, Rwanda and Bosnia?   Why were you not able to do more in a country no bigger than France with a population smaller than New Jersey?   Was it your interest in not stopping the Muslim death squads from cleansing the country?

Regarding the Middle East you suggested:

"I think we should be concerned about all crises, but I have indicated that one crisis that has impact well beyond its borders on people far away from the conflict is the Israeli-Palestinian issue.   And I am encouraged that recently there has been a sense that we need to make a renewed attempt to resolve that issue.   But that would also require that one works with the Palestinians to establish unity amongst themselves, and then proceed from there.   I think on the work of the Alliance of Civilizations, one thing that came through very clearly is that in some of the conflicts we are seeing, and believing that it is religion which is at the basis, not necessarily so.   Most of it is political, political policies and differences which pushes people sometimes to take the law into their own hands and go in another direction.   The issue is not the faith.   Yes, in some situations the faithful behave very badly towards each other, but the basis of most of these conflicts is political."

Are you not on the same planet with the rest of us?   The issue is not faith?   Then why is the central argument between Muslims and Jews, the Muslims claiming they would like to drive the Jews into the sea?   Maybe you can say that the argument is an ethnic one and maybe you can say it is a genocidal wish on the part of Arabs.   But you cannot claim this is a political one and you cannot say the key to resolution is for the "Palestinians to establish unity amongst themselves" unless your final solution parallels Adolph Hitler's.   You see, Kofi, this is what has always bothered people of conscience about you.   You always come down on the wrong side of every issue.   You always seem to favor the Muslim aggressor against all others.   Why exactly is that?

As to what you see as your accomplishments, you say your biggest accomplishments were:

"I would say the work we did on human rights and the approval of the responsibility to protect by the Member States. Second, I would say that our fight for equality, our determination that any inequality between States and within States should be reduced and that in a world where you have extreme poverty and immense wealth sitting side by side, it's not sustainable.   And we came up with the Millennium Development Goals which today is our common framework for development.   I would also say that the work we've done on infectious diseases, from HIV/AIDS to the work we did with WHO on the avian flu, were important.   And of course, I've also made the United Nations a truly partnership organization, realizing from the beginning that we couldn't do everything and we had to know what we can do, what others do better, what we have to do with others.   And, I think, opening up to the private sector, foundations, universities and civil society, we have been able to bring on partners and thus expand our activities."

I suppose you will be a Socialist until the end.   You still don't recognize that "poverty and wealth sitting side by side" can't be resolved simply by bringing down the wealthy.   You have to bring up the impoverished and those ends are not often met by bringing down the rich.   You still ascribe to the mantra that government is the solution.   Your biggest frustration was not having hold of an actual government, one with the power to tax as it sees fit.

You had some other regrets which you spoke of.   These were all focused on the situation in Iraq including:

"the oil-for-food [programme], and the way it was exploited to undermine the Organization.   Yes, there was some mismanagement.   But I think when historians look at the records, they will draw the conclusion that, yes, there was mismanagement; there may have been several UN staff members who were engaged, but the scandal, if any, was in the capitals and with the 2,200 companies that made a deal with Saddam behind our backs.   Of course, I hope the historians will realize that the UN is more than oil-for-food.   The UN is the UN that coordinates tsunami [relief], the UN that deals with the Kashmir earthquake, the UN that is pushing for equality and fighting to implement the Millennium Development Goals, the UN that is fighting for human dignity and the rights of others, and all the other aspects.   That was a very special programme, the oil-for-food, we were asked to implement.   So please don't generalize from the particular."

Generalize from the particular?   The oil-for-food program was the largest criminal enterprise ever on the face of the Earth.   You presided over it.   Your relatives were enriched by it.   It was, if anything symptomatic of your entire organization rather than being one minor problem which wasn't your fault.   Your leadership caused the oil for food fiasco and ultimately led to the Iraq war.   You weren't so much victim as perpetrator.

Regarding the general criticism your regime has received, you blamed the minority of Americans, wondering

"they should ask themselves if the UN is no longer here, how do we deal with some of the issues which cross borders?   Who is going to speak out and stand up for the poor, the weak and the voiceless?   Whom are we going to turn to when you have the Lebanons?   We saw it last summer.   The UN was the only organization that could have stepped in and do what we did.   Who is going to coordinate the next tsunami?   Or the Kashmir earthquake?   Who is going to send in the troops to protect the weak and the helpless?   And who is going to feed the internally displaced in Darfur and other regions?   They just have to think sincerely and simply and look around them – but I'm not sure – that's a problem – you can't fight ideology."

The trouble is, Kofi, you never understood what the UN's mission was and is.   The UN is supposed to be the place where countries with differences come together and resolve those without reverting to armed conflict.   It was never designed as an instrument which would feed, house, clothe, and computerize the poor.   It was never designed as a vehicle which would further the interests of one people over another such as those poor displaced Palestinians who history has shown exist only as a clever ruse by which to push the Jews into the sea.   The UN was supposed to mostly resolve disputes between countries which could result in wider conflict.   It was never intended to be an African-styled dictatorship which would lay claim to every problem facing humanity.   It wasn't designed to further questionable science regarding anthropogenic greenhouse warming.   It wasn't designed to collect taxes from computer purchasers so as to provide computers to citizens of nations suffering under repressive dictators.   It was supposed to be a vehicle for diplomacy.   But under you, it tried to stick its nose into every crack and crevice.   Under you, it failed in its central mission.   Historians will be more concerned with whether the institution will be able to survive your mismanagement.   They will not be concerned with protecting your legacy.   the fact that you would make such an outrageous contention shows us exactly where the problem lies.

Good-bye Kofi.   And good riddance!