First John Bolton resigns, and now Kofi leaves on Dec 31 after 10 years.
In his last speech, Kofi Annan summed up five principles that he considers essential: collective responsibility, global solidarity, rule of law, mutual accountability and multilateralism.
Kofi is of course critical of the US. I wonder why the U.N. would have strained relations with the USA?
Annan’s tenure in the U.N. wasn’t remarkable. Except his reign over the oil for food scandal.
Good riddings.
You do have to laugh at the idea of Kofi talking about the rule of law and accountability.
How many countries have UN forces known less for their peace keeping and more for their piece taking from young local girls? Who oversaw Rwanda? The Oil for Food scandal? How many have been punished for this? How rich has he and his family become while at the UN?
Inquiring minds want to know.
**Kofi is of course critical of the US. **
Of course he is!! The US kicked him off his Oil for Food gravy train.
**I wonder why the U.N. would have strained relations with the USA? **
I wonder why anyone really cares about the UN anymore? Uhh, hello China on the Human Rights Council and they sit right next to whom? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan!?!? How can the UN hope to be cridible with countries like that leading the world’s HUMAN RIGHTS council?
Who does this esteemed security council go after? Darfur? Other African genocides? Nope! Isreal. Hmm, that makes complete sense. The indescriminate slaughter of millions in Africa simply based upon tribes is ignored while they investigate Isreal? Makes me laugh.
**Annan’s tenure in the U.N. wasn’t remarkable. Except his reign over the oil for food scandal. **
Annan made a very thoughtful speech on his way out, highly critical of the Bush administrations approach to foreign policy.
Annan was far from perfect, but his comments on how the rest of the world sees the American shift in foreign policy from one of self-defense to one of offense as disturbing is right on. He emphasised working together with other countries not as lone rangers.
If we had listened to him maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now so as much as he made his share of mistakes, we made our own by not listening to him.
Of course, the only important thing now is the scandal. That should make us feel better about our own performance in Iraq.
What do you recommend as an alternative the U.N? Or are you saying that the U.N is a worthwhile organization, just that it is run by the wrong people, including Annan? The US doesn’t get to choose who serves in the U.N.
We need the U.N.
“We need the U.N.”
For what?
We need the U.N as a forum for smaller countries to be heard and represented.
Adios, crook.
So basically the smaller countries “need” the UN. We, the U.S. certainly don’t need it. And I’m not so sure the UN really does a very good job of allowing the little countries to be heard or represented. On top of that, giving a voice to the little guy is not the UN charter.
So basically the smaller countries “need” the UN. We, the U.S. certainly don’t need it. And I’m not so sure the UN really does a very good job of allowing the little countries to be heard or represented. On top of that, giving a voice to the little guy is not the UN charter.
I disagree, we need hear the voices of the smaller countries as much as they need to have their say. Its not uncommon for people who perceive themselves to be both voiceless and powerless to resort to tactics that include terrorism in order to make themselves heard. The Palestinian people would be a prime example of such a dynamic, as would Nelson Mandela and the ANC.
Of course any organization founded in San Francisco is going to have its share of critics on this forum by nature of that fact alone.
Is it your opinion that the UN actually does a good job of giving small countries a real voice, or that it is the only device by which they could have that voice?
I think the UN was a great idea and sevrved a good purpose. I even think that purpose would benefit by having an organization to uphold it nowadays. However, I don’t think the UN suits that original purpose anymore. Many of the purposes it does serve could be done by other organizations.
The UN can only be as successful as its most powerful members allow it to be. The current US administration has had a very blatant anti UN agenda, heck we are deadbeats on our dues, so it hasn’t really fulfilled its promise lately.
The UN has a role to play and it can do so successfully if we allow it.
“The UN can only be as successful as its most powerful members allow it to be”
I disagree. We have clearly been taken out of the decision making process on several key process bodies. The Council on Human Rights is just one example. The make-up of the Security Council and the mechanism by which it operates does not allow much real action, and arguing that our lack of dues paying has had any effect at all is silly. We still contribute more monetarily, physically, and militarily than anyone else. Anyone who has operated with the UN knows that many countries show up purposely light on gear and clothing because they know we will spend the money to outfit them. I agree we have moved away from the UN, but we are hardly responsible for its lack of effectiveness.
My favorite part was the bit about praising Truman for going through the U.N. to deal with the North Korean invasion in 1950. Of course, what Annan conveniently left out was that the Soviet Union, for reasons I can’t recall right offhand, was boycotting the Security Council the week Korea came up. So, of course, the U.S. easily got an up vote to fight North Korea by the U.N. The Soviets never made that mistake again, and the Security COuncil has had its teeth pretty much pulled ever since.
Of course, what else did Annan express in his good bye speech? Why expanding the Security Council. Sure, lets make this group even more worthless than it already is. What the hell, in fact, let’s let everybody on the Security COuncil and keep every one on a level playing field.
.
**heck we are deadbeats on our dues, **
Don’t we cap our contributions at 25% of the total? Should one country reall be on the hook for 1/4 of the global organization?
“So basically the smaller countries “need” the UN. We, the U.S. certainly don’t need it.” - slowguy
Yeah well said. Which then begs the question why is the USA still funding it?
Insult to injury is when the USA hosts the last UN meeting magnanamously a few months ago on home soil and then Hugo Chavez get’s up and has his long speech spewing anti US vitrol which would not been as bad if what he said wasn’t so ridiculous and then the real insult to injury is when he gets a rounding applause for his efforts.
The USA pretty much has all it’s trading partners sewn up, so do you really need to pander to the political agendas of such disrespectful nations when making and executing foriegn policy? I say keep the deeds and the money beneficial to the USA and it’s true allies and stop helping the ingrates. Such nations need to want to become allies with the USA to get all the benefits from that relationship and not the USA having to please them . That’s just ass about.
“We need the U.N as a forum for smaller countries to be heard and represented” - Yahey
But of course the smaller countries do, especially Hugo Chavez, Iran and Indonesia and all the other countries that hate America. Which begs the question why the USA is funding the UN and why you are supporting American haters … AGAIN!
See you’ve been spreading the message to that other triathlete forum as well … any others? It’s beyond just internet debate, you must be on some sort of support the radicals ‘crusade’.
… That’s fuggin hillarious! Made my day. And as they say, “A lot of truth is said in jest.” Good one MJ!
Yup Kofi Anan … good ridance to useless rubbish.