January 5, 1999 -- Hong Kong -- It has always been a contentious hobby-horse of mine, but I can live with corruption and sleaze - if it is done honestly and for the right reasons. That's why I have this terrible reluctance to accept smiley-faced politicians and diplomats at face value. So many of them are steeped in sleaze and corruption - not all, I hasten to add for the benefit of those readers who clutch images of high-minded public servants close to their idealistic breasts.

I mean those readers who rush out and vote at every opportunity to elect the people who have presided over a more than 100-percent increase in civil and inter-national conflicts since the end of the Cold War when 'victorious' NATO leaders promised us plebs a 'peace dividend'. The fact that POTUS has just announced his intention to launch one of the biggest military spending sprees since the early 1980s is an indication of the peace dividend we are now enjoying. Not.

Y'know, like most folks I catch onto buzz-words and phrases. Back in the bad old days it was something like 'red under the bed' - just scary enough to keep military budgets high and the lower class of international leaders in their place. Nowadays the word is 'proliferation' - and boy, that's a heap more scary.

So who is to blame for this dangerous World in which we live? I'm not about to launch into a diatribe against elected officials and appointed burocrats who do many good things - some of them through back-door deals, bribes or threats. I expect that some of those officials even have conscience enough to have a problem looking at themselves in the bathroom mirror - but harbour the consolation that what they are doing is best for folks that pay for their limousines or Secret Service body-guards.

No, emphatically, no, I am not going to toe the extremist liberal line and promote total diplomatic and economic isolation of those foreign leaders who do not subscribe to some Western notion of human rights and fair play. I have lived in and accepted Asia for too long to be a really true 'card carrying' liberal. I do have sympathy with those diplomats and politicians who feel compelled to grit their teeth and get on with business with folks that they secretly revile. I acccept the fact that like it or not, the end often justifies the means. If keeping Boeing workers in a job means cozying up to some distasteful characters overseas - then heck, cozy on up Bubba. Stack the priorities in line and go for it.

But there is a limit. Oh yes, there is a limit. Do the business, but do it within the limits of essential diplomatic and political protocol - don't overdo the 'Hey, I know you think this guy is a murdering thug, but I really like him" bit. And don't do it when it is not necessary.

For example, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher would have been better advised to keep her 'let him go' opinions to herself when Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was booked by London bobbies. Any statement she ever made in defense of human rights was suddenly rendered meaningless. Her true colours were run up the flag-pole, and only the likes of ex-President Suharto bothered to salute.

But what prompted my melancholy this week> It was the toothy grin displayed by former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali when he pumped the hands of Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea. The Khmer Rouge murderers doubtless enjoyed the coverage. In Cambodia on other business, BBG didn't need to glamourise a defection by two of the World's most wanted criminals.

BBG was our U.N. Secretary General. Has he changed so much since Kofi Annan moved into the office with terrible furniture? Or was he always such a creep? A few years ago when I was a columnist on a Bangkok daily I was severely taken to task - frequently - for my criticism of BBG and his handling of the hugely expensive Cambodia peacekeeping-election operation. I wish I was in Bangkok tonight challenging my critics on what they think of their hero now.

I just hope he washed his hands. I doubt it.

We live in a dangerous World than we did 10 years ago. And I have mentioned by name two of the people who still enjoy such high esteem - who are at least partly responsible for it.

On a lighter note. I dug up the following from a column I wrote in January 1998.

"First off came the announcement that the IRS were planning an internal investigation into why Paula Jones was hit with an unexpected audit just days after kicking back an out-of-court settlement offer by Bill Clinton's law team. A coincidence? Or something more sinister? According to insinuations by PJ's legal eagles, Bill apparently gets some satisfaction by living vicariously. They're suggesting that if he couldn't do the business with PJ in that Little Rock hotel room, he'd simply encourage the IRS to screw her and drool over the gory details.

What was potentially a serious situation was lightened by White House spokesman, Mike McCurry. In a rare example of White House self-deprecation, Mike told the assembled press corps: "We may have done some dumb things, but we are not certifiably insane."

I asked the question in January 1998, I ask it again: Who says?

-- Chris Gelken