Kofi Annan

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Does anyone else feel sorry for this guy?

He is in charge of histories largest and most cumbersome paper tiger.

He can't commit to anything because he knows there is a real chance that he can't follow through - and that just makes him more cautious. Its a downward spiral.

He has NO power. The UN is at its best a moderator that members pay lip service respect to.

What can be done to change this?

I think Bush was on right track (I'll brace myself for abuse) because UN would have won some points if ultimatum was executed with consensus. Now even the illusion has been torn away and Kofi asks for direction in how to proceed. Hardly the position of a leader with real capability.

kofi annan is worthless.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said this at the U.N. a couple of days ago:

I think the issue here is not an individual, but the organization itself. UN is not perfect, actually far from it.
However, taking unilateral action, not listening to what others say is not the right path either.
I believe, we have to reorganize, redesign, recreate UN with a more democratic way. Why certain countries have veto power, and others don't?

What about a real, international democracy, where for the important decisions, every single country votes, and every single country obeys the decision. Knowing that this is what the majority wants, it should be somewhat logical to follow it.

I think the reason is that the Western, powerful countries want to keep the power in their hands.

US, by sort of stepping out from the UN, and taking unilateral action, is chasing its own interest. This is not particularly a bad thing, and we have the power to do so.

How about other (less powerful or flatout powerless) countries' interests?

Can we say, screw them, we're taking all; or should we find a way to bring them all to board, with an equally important vote?

The UN has weight in trade/culture/science issues.

But absolutely none in politics since it has no real power.

I think i'd be stupid to expect the UN to have influence in political issues.

Onan (Genesis 38:9) is a more suitable surname for the present UN's Secretary General.

One of the positives, for mine, to come out of this war it's the realisation that the UN needs more teeth. They need to be able to act when arseholes like Saddam, Mugabe, Pinochet commit human rights abuses against their own people.

The only problem with that, however, is that what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander - and with the US holding people in Guantanamo Bay without access to Geneva conventions or rights of any kind, Australia keeping children in concentration camps and royally ****ing over our indigenous population, not everyone would like what the UN had to say, and certainly wouldn't want to be told they're doing the wrong thing.

Certainly Saddam never gave a **** when the UN said bad Saddam - nor does Israel, the US (unless it suits them), Australia, anyone. The UN has limited powers and only really managed to set a few resolutions and put sanctions on countries that only serve to **** over the people.

However, Annan said something along the lines of, for all it's faults the UN remains the best way to mediate in disputes, and that a policy of unilateral pre-emption sets a dangerous precedent.

I agree. The prospect of China invading Taiwan, Indonesia suppresing Acehan rebels, etc etc, under the banner of defeating terrorism.... man it sets a dangerous and scary world view, no?

Anyway - the UN needs some teeth and in a perfect world would have some sort of all-powerful mandate over countries not toeing the line, we in the West included.

Pipe dream though currently, and will be until a character like Mandela or ... I dunno who, can rise above the self-interest inherent in acts like the invasion of Iraq, the imprisoning of children in the deserts and Saddam's torture chambers - if someone like Mandela could make a judgement that would be upheld and respected by governments around the world... - I just think the world would be a better place if the US wasn't expected to play the global cop, that there'd be less resentment of a force made up of everyone, rather than just the US and Britain.

All of this makes sense, Coogee. The problem is in the fact that the UN is a creation of the mightiest countries after WW2 - and among them, principally the US. From the beginning, its running is biased since members are judge and judged. We are far from a real world democracy, and that's what allows the US to use resolution 1441 to legitimize their stance, while they bash the UN for its supposed inaction concerning other concerns, although they are fully part of it - so they are part of the problem as of the solution.
The invasion of Iraq has simply better put in perspective these flaws, now that the US is the sole superpower on this Earth.
France and other countries keep defending this international legitimity approach, and I believe that this is the good one. But when selfish interests of the powerful members come to be compromized or threatened by this international legitimity ... this democratic stance is unable to counterweigh. What is the solution ? You gave one possibility, somebody of the stature of a one Mandela to lead a favorable international public opinion. Now you have to do with fierce and belliquous nationalisms all around the planet - and first of all in the USA. You have some specimen samples on this board.

two of the obvious problems with the U.N. Remain the veto and the fact that the Security council members and U.N. memebers only represent the interests of the various governments around the world and not say the rights of their countries citazens.
The veto itself has two obvious problems first, the U.N. can only do things when the top five memebers are all in agreement or abstain from using it. the second problem with the veto is to make U.N. resolutuions have a chance of being created all of the top five must agree this discourages dissent. I do not merely mean the right to disagree, I mean the right to allow someone else the chance to show you that you are wrong, the obvious example is when Chirac briefly questioned wiether there was WMD's and was howled down, this looks ironic in hindsight. it is my belief that part of the problem with the WMD arguement was that no one was being alloweed to make the negative to Bushes position, in a balanced way. In fact 1441 require's Saddam to show proof without recognizing the principle of western reason that you can't prove a negative, and that therefore he couldn't provide proof because the weapens had been destroyed and no proof existed. because records of the destruction may not have been kept. I think the Veto has to be made harder to use or removed.
The second problem is the fact that, when decisions are made, the Delegates and Security Council memebers only represent the interests of their countries Governments and not the principles of the U.N. therefore inevitably, when decisions are made the interests of their Governments come ahead of any human rights or International Laws, Many constitutionally ruled countries have no trouble recognizing that governments do not always have the interests of protecting the weak,or of obeying the law and that is why they impose a seperation between the 2. that is why I believe the Security Council memebers should have as their main responsibility a duty to a set of principles not the duty to their government that they have now.

Jvstr i'd feel insulted if you DIDN'T think of me as a moron

I'll say - if he thought you were a good bloke it's immediate evidence you're an idiot.

@ Coogee!!! took the words right out of my mouth!! Every day I see one of his idiotic posts I'm glad I totally disagree with him.

It's always amusing watching a mentally defunct leftist and foreign terrorists engage each other in an orgy of mental mastrubation.


--JV

I totally agree that the UN has no teeth, and needs to be able to knock members into line. The fact that America can veto resolution after resolution regarding Israel is disgusting, and proof of what you are saying. The UN needs to be able to tell America that what Israel has been doing for years is a criminal abuse of human rights, and take action disregarding America against Israel accordingly.

Incidentally, look at the French veto record, versus the American veto record.

Hypocracy?

Jvstr case is serious - and I am not joking. He needs urgent medication. I sincerely wish this kind of mentally ill paranos are not too numerous in the US.

Thanks JV. Your point is proven. Foreigners, go figure!