You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
US targets Annan over Iraq criticism
2004-11-18
Frustration is mounting in the US administration over what it sees as the UN's reluctance to commit staff in Iraq and unhelpful comments from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, The New York Times reported on Sunday.
I'm coming to the conclusion that we're going to wait until Kofi's gone from his position in 2006 before deciding whether to bail from the UN. If his successor is just as bad — Khatami, for instance — we'll hang it up. If there's an improvement, we may hang in. But I don't think things are going to improve at the UN. I think they're going to get worse, and that more corruption is going to become more inescapable.
In an interview with the Times, Annan defended the UN role in Iraq as "essential" and said he was distressed by the criticism.
Take a pill, then.
But White House officials are saying the United Nations is drifting towards irrelevance and are developing a dismissive attitude towards Annan, according to a senior US official at the UN. "The Iraqis and the Americans are completely frustrated," the official was quoted as saying. "The secretary-general is still recommending many thousands of peacekeepers for Sierra Leone and the Congo, and yet there are seven election workers in Iraq. That tells the whole story."
Posted by:Fred

#22  I dunno about that, Mike. It been getting pretty obvious that the UN has outlived it's design criteria - that ended with the cold war. An org designed to do nothing and take it's time about it is pretty damn useless anymore, however good a brake it used to be in the superpower staredown.
Posted by: mojo   2004-11-18 9:54:11 PM  

#21  If the Bush Administration intends to undermine Kofi Annan, then it will be in for a very rude surprise when the UN elects his successor, who will be much more hostile to the USA than Kofi Annan is.

Okay, criticism of, and frustration with, the UN Secretary General is now called 'undermining'.

As to Mr. Annan's successor: a more hostile one will be elected, regardless of what the Bush Administration does or does not do. No rude surprise there.
Posted by: Pappy   2004-11-18 9:52:33 PM  

#20  
Re #8 (Anonymous4724): If an election were to be held today to decide if the US should leave the UN, what would the results be?

About the same as if an election were to be held today to decide whether Patrick Buchanan should be President of the USA.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-11-18 9:45:37 PM  

#19  ...who will be much more hostile to the USA than Kofi Annan is.

So much the better. It's about time we all put our cards on the table. In words definitely and deeds most likely, the Kofi Annans and Jacques Chiracs are objectively our foes.

We just had an election where one of the salient issues was whether we were willing to go down the warpath alone or if we needed to bring our "allies" along with us or ask their permission to act. Seems to me the American electorate has spoken:

With friends like these, we don't need enemies.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2004-11-18 5:08:29 PM  

#18  Pic caption:

"Want to come back to my place later?..."
Posted by: mojo   2004-11-18 3:12:52 PM  

#17  Colin Powell should be Kofi's replacement. We should inist on it.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2004-11-18 2:38:10 PM  

#16  Dessrt Blondie,
NO, NO ,NO
Puleeze, not Jimmah
I cant stand the thought.......
He is the reason why I stopped eating peanut butter sandwiches cuz I was afraid one of Jimmah's peanuts may find it's way into my sandwich !
Posted by: Elder of zion   2004-11-18 2:20:46 PM  

#15  Somehow I really doubt that Khatami could be any more anti-American than Kofi. Khatami's just more honest about it. Kofi has the better wardrobe and doesn't shout.
I mean, really, why not? Libya's on the Human Rights commission at the UN, aren't they?
Better yet.....how about Jimmy Carter for UN leader? Why not the worst ex-prez?
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2004-11-18 2:04:01 PM  

#14  "But White House officials are saying the United Nations is drifting towards irrelevance and are developing a dismissive attitude towards Annan, according to a senior US official at the UN."

Maybe we can dismiss Koffee like we did Arafish? We saw what happened with him once he wasn't getting as much press (at least before his death).
Posted by: BA   2004-11-18 1:16:27 PM  

#13  If the Bush Administration intends to undermine Kofi Annan, then it will be in for a very rude surprise when the UN elects his successor, who will be much more hostile to the USA than Kofi Annan is.


Hey Mike:

Yeah, I'm shaking in my boots at all the STERNLY worded letters that are soon to follow.

Fuck the UN, fuck Kofi, and fuck you for being their self-appointed little girl.
Posted by: Crusader   2004-11-18 12:08:16 PM  

#12  I would not be surprised if Clinton begins to lobby for the job. Not a bad choice, all in all.

In any case I'd bet there's now a task force or two within the Bush admin working on setting up a parallel group or organization that will make the UNSC completely irrelevant. Probably a US and Asia-centered group of twelve or so nations, with European representation limited to three: UK, EU rep, Russia.
Posted by: lex   2004-11-18 11:53:12 AM  

#11  If the UN intends to alienate the US, then it will be in for a very rude surprise when the US withdraws. We saw how well that works with the League of Nations.

It will also be very interesting to see the US fail to veto a more hostile GS than Kofi, especially as W will still be president in '06.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-11-18 11:31:08 AM  

#10  a very rude surprise when the UN elects his successor, who will be much more hostile to the USA
You could be right, I hear Clinton wants Kofi's job!
Posted by: bitter pill   2004-11-18 11:12:22 AM  

#9  If the Bush Administration intends to undermine Kofi Annan, then it will be in for a very rude surprise when the UN elects his successor, who will be much more hostile to the USA than Kofi Annan is.

Just so you know, the UN doesn't have any God-given right to U.S dollars.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-11-18 11:08:57 AM  

#8  If an election were to be held today to decide if the US should leave the UN, what would the results be?
I know it is just a dream, but would it not be wonderful if Americans were to vote to leave the most inefficient and corrupt organization in the world?
Posted by: Anonymous4724   2004-11-18 11:01:49 AM  

#7  Is Mike Sylwester RB's resident tranzi?
Posted by: Psycho Hillbilly   2004-11-18 10:54:09 AM  

#6  That sounds remarkably like a threat of extortion.
Posted by: Jules 187   2004-11-18 10:09:37 AM  

#5  
If the Bush Administration intends to undermine Kofi Annan, then it will be in for a very rude surprise when the UN elects his successor, who will be much more hostile to the USA than Kofi Annan is.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-11-18 10:00:07 AM  

#4  Well, Dr. Condolezza Rice gets moved to State last week, and the White House starts being openly dismissive of the UN this week.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Condi! Condi! Condi!
Posted by: Ptah   2004-11-18 9:32:42 AM  

#3   Typical cow pie material...

MSM, Arabs, and UN: "We have no security in Iraq!"

A mission to kill the scum bags begins....

MSM, Arabs, and UN "We must stop the fighting immediately!"

Mission successfully ends and a car bomb goes off elsewhere....

MSM, Arabs, and UN: "We have no security in Iraq!"

Solutions offered (MSM, Arabs, UN).....

...........Hey! Look over there a pretty bird!

Everyone is concerned about a Marine shooting a wounded insurgent (who supposedly want to die anyways) under uncertain combat conditions. Even though the day before or the same day a Marine was wounded after a body of an insurgent was booby trapped.

Yet, kidnap and shoot a helpless 59 year old CARE aid worker in the back of the head (in the proudest tradtion of "brave" Mooselimb "warriors" and you get nothing. Not from the MSM, the UN, CARE, or the Arabs.

Asshats.

Hey Coffee Ann Ann, how you and Voelker coming along with those oil for food documents anyway? Oh say hi to your son JoJo for us. I hear he fell into a great deal of cash for his (Cough, cough) hard work.



Posted by: 98zulu   2004-11-18 2:36:21 AM  

#2  About Time! Annan has this insatiable propensity at worrying about lone insurgent mistreatments, and turning a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of Africans that cry out for his (UN) interdiction! Come to think of it...I have never seen him sweat!
Posted by: smn   2004-11-18 1:09:46 AM  

#1  Good. As with the idiotically belated WaPo realization that Iran might be developing a nuke missile (duh!), people in the US are waking up to the disaster and resource black hole that is the UN.

Some day, perhaps a couple of years from now, there will be sufficient force behind the realization to act. To design a replacement that makes sense and learns from Grand International Union Mistake #2.

We can do it right, eventually, but we have to quit betting our money, resources, and good will on another losing hand. Gotta know when to fold 'em.
Posted by: .com   2004-11-18 12:48:58 AM  

00:00