Right, now I've got your attention. Bigger things are afoot people, bigger even than a hovering feeding tube.
A hugely comoprehensive, radical raft of reforms have just been proposed for the UN, that if accepted, will change international relations as we know them.
So take the time to read about it, either starting with my diary yesterday, or Madelaine Albright's take on the specific reforms posed around the doctrine of pre-emption.
More below.
In the wake of Kofi Annan's announcement of a radical reform package for the UN to be voted upon in September this year, discussion on the implications of the package has begun.
If you haven't caught up with the proposed reforms, see my diary from yesterday here
In the wake of Annan's announcement, CNN interviewed Madelaine Albright.
You can find a full transcript of the interview here
In what will in all likelihood be a stark contrast to the current Bush administration, Albright has backed the proposed reforms, and stood firmly by Annan in the wake of the Iraq Oil for Food program.
As predicted, the main focus of media analysis on Annan's raft of proposed reform measures is on the proposal to expand the membership of the Security Council, and codify the conditions under which a state can take military action, and the conditions that would trigger a UN military intervention.
This of course, walks straight into the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. Albright:
I think it's a useful thing to have a debate about what is an appropriate use of force, especially when the issue of preemption comes up. I think that the U.N. and international law has made very clear that if there has been a crossing of a border or a real attack, in time, that everybody has a right to use force.
The thing that has made this so much more complicated is the Bush doctrine of preemption, which is really based on having accurate intelligence. And so that is much of what is going to be debated, I think, internationally.
You can bet it is - can anyone say North Korea, for starters?
The preceding negotiations and debate, and the final vote in September this year, are probably the most critical 6 months in the life of the UN since 1945.
The reforms Annan has put forward are radical, far-reaching, and comprehensive. If he succeeds, he will go down in history as the UN Secretary-General who gave the UN teeth.
It is refreshing to see an influential former US leader endorsing these changes - at least the small percentage that were touched on in this interview (although I note with sorrow the usual reaffirmation of the USA's right to act unilaterally - yeah, 'cause that has just worked a treat over the years to help stabilise the world, end wars and suffering in general. But I digress).
It is also refreshing to see Albright firmly back Annan, as the Bush-sponsored vultures circle for his corpse in the wake of the oil for food scandal:
KING: As you know, there are many who think that Kofi Annan is part of the problem. And there are ongoing investigations into the oil-for-food program. Paul Volcker, a distinguished American, to further his reporting on that.
ALBRIGHT: Well, I don't think it's fair. I have the highest respect for him. I was very glad when he was elected secretary- general in the first instance. We had a lot to do with that. I think he's very fine.
This oil-for-food thing is a tragedy. But I think that he is taking this very seriously and not only suggesting reforms that would affect the nation states, who are actually the parts of the United Nations, but also reforms as far as the secretariat is concerned.
And I think he's in a good position to push the reforms through. But in the end, as he said in his speech to the General Assembly, the countries themselves have to make some very tough decisions. And I think we should give them a chance to fill out his term.
Go read about the UN reforms. If they are passed, or even some of the more critical ones, they may well provide the foil to a rogue USA as we have been screaming witness to under the Bush Administration.
I know so many Americans are desparately worried by the site of American power being abused, and the seeming lack of international checks and balances to counter this. Many are focussing with hope on the rising EU, and even mulling less-than-negative implications of the rising China.
If Annan gets his way, the UN will stand as a far more effective, robust and empowered organisation to block rogue power as well.