2004-12-04 International-UN-NGOs

Kofi Annan: America's Man at the United Nations

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-04 9:37:31 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Kofi Annan is too honest, and too intelligent, to have influenced the procurement process in favor of a firm that had an association with his son.

Yeah, we can trust him. He's not like the others.
Keep trying, Mike.

Posted by tu3031 2004-12-04 9:52:05 AM|| 2004-12-04 9:52:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I ain't buying...........off with his head!

Posted by RJB in JC MO 2004-12-04 9:57:10 AM|| 2004-12-04 9:57:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Mike, look, if it was just one thing like his son's involvement in that Oil-for-Food scam, even painting it as generously as it is done here, you'd be right.
But add in the fact he did nothing about Rwanda, is doing virtually nothing about Darfur, is giving France a pass on their behavior in the Ivory Coast, whitewashes the harrassing behavior of one of his top people towards the UN staff (he's the only Secretary General to have a no confidence vote from the staff, think about that, Mike)....precisely why should he stay there?
I can sum this whole article up with this: "Yeah, he's incompetent, but the next guy will REALLY not like the US, so you better shut up and be thankful!"
No thanks.

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-12-04 10:08:10 AM|| 2004-12-04 10:08:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Mike cites the NY Times, defending Kofi. Anyone else hear an echo here?

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-04 10:10:20 AM|| 2004-12-04 10:10:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Part of the problem with Anan is that, like many in the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, he has never held elected office or in any other way been accountable for making hard decisions with real consequences. He doesn't begin to have the moral stature or the experience of Dag Hammerskald, for instance.

He has way overstepped his authority by announcing, for instance, that our presence in Iraq is "illegal". That is not the official role of the Secretary General and he has not earned the stature to speak out at a personal level. Indeed, his role in Rwanda and Sudan suggest a significant cowardice on his part.

I have less than full confidence in Mr. Anan's reported future efforts to reform the UN. I've seen way too many bureaucracies try to do that from within and the results are, shall we say, predictable ....

Posted by rkb 2004-12-04 10:11:14 AM|| 2004-12-04 10:11:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Here are some of the problems, from this entry on today's RB:

In the eastern Congo, scene of an operation that began as an EU military display under French leadership and is now one of the U.N.âs biggest peacekeeping missions ever, the blue helmets have apparently been routinely sexually abusing pre-pubescent refugee girls, creating a camp full of 13-year-old mothers. Months ago, the U.N. promised to issue a report on the situation. It was finally released two weeks ago, according to the BBC. The outcome: Kofi Annan released a statement saying "it is vital that the investigations be speeded up."

Uh huh. One would think Mr. Anan had no responsibility for that investigation, for the pace at which it proceeded or for speaking out on behalf of oppressed black GIRLS being abused badly by troops under UN auspices.

What is at stake is much larger than Anan or the UN per se. It is a pigpile of willful ignorance, tolerance of corruption and short-term thinking among the comfortable elite who don't mind seeing suffering continue so long as their perks and pensions aren't affected.

In Germany, the International Herald Tribune is reporting that the abuse of German army conscripts is part of a widening scandal. "The accusations involve stories of instructors dressed in Arab costumes beating recruits, giving them electric shocks and dousing them with cold water," the paper reports, even though none of the recruits are Iraqis. The report comes after scandals surfaced in German defense spending. Meanwhile, Spiegel reports that a couple of U.S. leftists have been welcomed into German courts to file a suit against Donald Rumsfeld for "war crimes" committed by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

... you could be forgiven for thinking that opposition to U.S. policies in Iraq and elsewhere is a consequence of ideological or strategic disagreements. But there is no ideology any more. Thereâs only anti-Americanism, scandal, and corruption. And of course stupidity (or willful ignorance on the part of an entire culture): According to a survey of 4,000 Britons under the age of 35 reported in the Independent, 60 percent of them have never heard of Auschwitz, and of those who thought the name was familiar, three quarters really didnât know much about what had gone on there. At least theyâll never forget.

Indeed. But they are likely to repeat it as a result, if they last that long.

Posted by rkb 2004-12-04 10:26:03 AM|| 2004-12-04 10:26:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm sorry. I forgot to take my gullibility pills this morning!

Kofi Annan is a crook, a thief, a liar, a fraud, and a generally unpleasant person. He is directly responsible for the oil for bombs program. He is partially - indirectly (thru his deliberate and calculated inaction) responsible for the Rwanda Genocide and the current Genocide occuring in western Sudan.
There is a reason for the vote of no confidence from his own staff.
Not only should he step down but he should be charged.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-12-04 10:33:21 AM|| 2004-12-04 10:33:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 "Kofi Annan is a crook, thief, a liar, a fraud, and a generally unpleasant person"

And those are his good qualities...

Posted by Ol_Dirty_American 2004-12-04 11:18:48 AM|| 2004-12-04 11:18:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 If he's so impotent and inocent, why are the investigations being impeded so well by the UN stonewall?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-04 11:25:46 AM|| 2004-12-04 11:25:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 It's interesting how the LLL, proclaiming the existence of conspiracies all around the world -- Halliburton, Chaney, Bush, Iraqi oil, multilateral corporations, etc -- have so far missed the odiferous whiff of conspiracy in Koko's scam.

Posted by Steve White 2004-12-04 12:40:53 PM|| 2004-12-04 12:40:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Shawcross is the 'journalist' who blamed Nixon for the creation of the Khmer Rouge. Shawcross is another LLL, an apologist for the Khmer Rouge and now an ally for the enemy coalition now at the United Nations.

All this is likely a major reason why this garbage was published.

Posted by badanov 2004-12-04 12:54:50 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-12-04 12:54:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 an apologist for the Khmer Rouge

That's a familiar theme, isn't it?

Posted by Raj 2004-12-04 12:59:05 PM|| 2004-12-04 12:59:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Frank - Echo? Ummmm... Revisiting Physics 101 methinks there is no sound in a vacuum... "In space, no one can hear you scream", heh. ;-)

Posted by .com 2004-12-04 1:16:44 PM|| 2004-12-04 1:16:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Shawcross has mellowed out a lot since "Sideshow". I think he has backed off a lot over what was in that book. And he was pro-war on Iraq. On the other hand, he is quite wrong about Annan.

Posted by Anonymous4870 2004-12-04 1:26:19 PM|| 2004-12-04 1:26:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 "...the LLL, proclaiming the existence of conspiracies all around the world..."
It's very simple, Steve, let me explain it to you:

Liberals do not believe in moral absolutes aside from "liberal is good" and "conservative is evil". So they, being the good guys in their own eyes, "cooperate" in groups. On the other hand, those nasty conservatives don't cooperate with each other -- they only "conspire" with each other. Thus Kofi must be good and you must be part of a Rantburg conspiracy to frame him.

That also explains why it's a conspiracy for the Vice President to discuss energy policy with energy company executives. He should only discuss energy policy with people so liberal that they wouldn't take jobs in the energy industry. Who better to influence energy policy than people with no energy experience?

Posted by Tom 2004-12-04 1:27:48 PM|| 2004-12-04 1:27:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Tom - "Liberals do not believe in moral absolutes"

Spot-on - they (or I should say their teachers / professors) missed Plato's points - and his prejudices dating from the enforced death of his mentor Socrates. In this interesting syllabus, check out "Lecture One: Plato" running through pages 5-12... Mildred Espree phreakin' "gets it"... sadly, many of her peers do not.

Ms Espree, among many others, employs John Leo and Meg Greenfield (believe it or not) to update the discussion of relative and absolute truth into contemporary terms. Both are heavily quoted in the uninsane academia for "getting it". Leo's Absolutophobia and Greenfield's Why Nothing is 'Wrong' Anymore (and no. I can't locate the text for either - sorry) are apparently frequently considered as a set in logic and critical thinking class syllabi - especially as a follow-on to Plato.

Here's an article with a condensed version of Leo's article to illustrate:
"The "nonjudgmental," "no-fault sin," generation has been taught that each person establishes his or her own values for his or her life, and those values depend upon the situation in which one finds him or her self. Maybe this generation cannot read, write or compute, but they do know not to be "judgmental" of the sodomites, nor of those in high places."

and...

"Miss Sommers points beyond multiculturalism to a general problem of so many students coming to college "dogmatically committed to a moral relativism that offers them no grounds to think" about cheating, stealing and other moral issues. Mr. Simon calls this "absolutophobia"--the unwillingness to say that some behavior is just wrong. Many trends feed the fashionable phobia. Postmodern theory on campus denies the existence of any objective truth: All we can have are clashing perspectives, not true moral knowledge. The pop-therapeutic culture has pushed nonjudgmentalism very hard. Intellectual laziness and the simple fear of unpleasantness are also factors."

Heh, heh.

If anyone has or locates the Greenfield article - PLEASE post the text or link - THANX! These are "old" (dinosaur days) print pieces dating from the prehistoric Greenfield - Newsweek, 1986 / reprinted in Reader's Digest, 1986; Leo - US News & World Report - 1997)

Posted by .com 2004-12-04 2:10:01 PM|| 2004-12-04 2:10:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 If I recall, Kofi DOES have the power to order people to release information concerning the current scandals, BUT REFUSES TO DO SO. Seems to me if he wants to clear himself, he'd start opening up and airing everything out. I mean, isn't THAT what the MSM and liberals the world over think conservatives in scandal should do?

Isn't sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander?

Posted by Ptah 2004-12-04 3:48:12 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-12-04 3:48:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Of course, there are other opinions.

Posted by mojo 2004-12-04 4:03:07 PM|| 2004-12-04 4:03:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 At the risk of saying anything else "spot-on" and risking responsibility for osteoarthritis in .com's typing finger, let me add this:

The U.N. itself is a classic example of this entire morality issue. Scads of diplomats and bureaucrats do a complicated verbal dance designed to obscure the unpleasantness of any moral absolutes. Hence Saddam could defy the Gulf War peace agreement, defy resolution after resolution, and loot the Oil for Food program. Meanwhile the French, the Russians, and Kofi Annan's son -- to name just a few -- were on the take, conspiring (yes, conspiring) with the Saddam. So George Bush, known for straight talk and absolutism, gets painted as the bad guy because he has the unpleasantness to confront all this in terms of right and wrong and us and them.

And for that reason, Mike Sylwester, the U.N. and Kofi Annan are basically useless. You cannot take the high moral ground or make things right by making deals with the devil.

Posted by Tom 2004-12-04 4:03:37 PM|| 2004-12-04 4:03:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Ptah - spot on! All he would have to do to prove he's willing is allow Volker's committe to subpoena and provide docs to Coleman's Senate Committee. The fact he won't provides a basis to suggest his culpability (and Kojo's) in malfeasance or cowardice to expose his allies

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-04 4:05:09 PM|| 2004-12-04 4:05:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Read the title, knew who posted it.

What a shame Mikey's mind is so small and predictable.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-12-04 4:08:17 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-12-04 4:08:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Kofi Annan: Americaâs Man at the United Nations

Ahhhaaahahahahhhhaaahahahahaaaa!......

Haahahahahaaahahaahaaaahahaaha!!!!!!!!

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-04 6:39:51 PM|| 2004-12-04 6:39:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 "In space, no one can hear you scream",

Not true, that last scream would punch out enough air to be heard a metre of so.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-04 6:58:49 PM|| 2004-12-04 6:58:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I heard an interview with Senator Coleman a day or 2 ago. He's definitely a good guy trying to get to the bottom of the UN oil for food scam. He was disheartened to say the least at the White House's limp wristed request that Kofi fess up.

I think it's safe to say that not all files will be opened regarding this scam that Saddam had going. It's not only Kofi's son who is implicated in the doo doo. Some Americans are said to be involved as middle men in the scam, including Marc Rich and his pal, Ben Pollner. These two jerks were given pardons by Clinton, yes, but only after pressure was brought to bear on the situation by some high profile Israelis. No one in the White House wants to go that route in the quest for truth, especially as it relates to our credibility with Iraqis starved to death by Saddam and Israeli families who lost family and friends to suicide bombers, financed by Saddam Hussein, who made a fortune through the oil for food venture. Some stones are not meant to be over turned.

Posted by Glomosing Crong7327 2004-12-04 8:12:14 PM|| 2004-12-04 8:12:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 GC7327 I hope you nave links for all those unsubstantiated charges. Mike S will want to review them at 9:00.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-04 8:47:29 PM|| 2004-12-04 8:47:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Liberals do not believe in moral absolutes aside from "liberal is good" and "conservative is evil".

Utter bullshit. Why don't you say we drink the blood of newborn children while you are at it?

On my part I've generally seen liberals be much more absolutist in their morality than conservatives. For example realpolitik is generally considered a conservative game, and realpolitik is probably the antithesis of moral absolutism. On the other hand vegetarianism for ethical reasons tends to be considered liberal practice -- and that's a case of moral absolutism.

On another matter, it's generally been conservatives who've failed to condemn torture or atleast hesitated before doing so -- it's generally been conservatives who always estimate the results of an action and whether it helps or hurts "our side" before passing judgment on it.

Or the phrase "My nation, right or wrong". This expression of utter moral relativism (or even complete amorality); it's generally not considered a *liberal* expression.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-04 9:27:22 PM|| 2004-12-04 9:27:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 However, the war in Iraq, opposed by a majority of the Security Council, has put him in an impossible position

Not really. This isn't a balancing act but a choice between those nations pledged to uphold UNSC resolutions and those UNSC member states that were determined to undermine and thwart sanctions, thus helping achieve the eventual goal of springing Saddam from the box that they themselves and the rest of the UNSC, and Kofi, had pledged to keep him in. The latter made a mockery of UNSC resolutions, of Oil for Food, of containment, of international law.

Perhaps Kofi is simply no better than he ought to be: not terribly smart, not terribly strong, not terribly scrupulous as a manager. But don't we demand better from a Nobel Peace Laureate?

Speaking of which, why does the UNSC get blamed for UN failures while praise for UN success attaches to Kofi? Nice work if you can get it.

Posted by lex 2004-12-04 9:35:42 PM|| 2004-12-04 9:35:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Aris, the most egregious practitioners of realpolitik in our time have been those on the left-- not the same as liberals, agreed, but the point here is that liberalism in the US and Europe has been hijacked by the admirers of Che and Chomsky and Trotsky. They're the ones who apologize for Milosevic, who stood up for the poor Taliban against those evil bullies Rumsfeld and Bush, who refer to jihadist fascist neck-sawers and child-killers as "minutemen", the brave heroes of the Iraqi "resistance" against the wicked US hegemon.

I consider myself a liberal and I'll be the first to admit that it's long past time that liberalism cleaned its house of the smelly little fascist apologists like Jimmy Carter and the French journalist Colombani and Chomsky and Chomsky's retarded little brother, Mikey Boy.

Posted by lex 2004-12-04 9:42:18 PM|| 2004-12-04 9:42:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#29
Re #28 (Lex)
I consider myself a liberal and I'll be the first to admit that it's long past time that liberalism cleaned its house of the smelly little fascist apologists like Jimmy Carter and the French journalist Colombani and Chomsky and Chomsky's retarded little brother, Mikey Boy.

Lex, I know it's Saturday night, but put the bottle away for now. You can have some more tomorrrow. Other people are watching.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-04 10:10:07 PM|| 2004-12-04 10:10:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 yep, and we agree, Mikey

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-04 10:17:11 PM|| 2004-12-04 10:17:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Pardon me, Aris. I meant the liberals with whom I am familiar here in the U.S., not world-class liberals like yourself. By the way, do you drink the blood of newborn children?

Posted by Tom 2004-12-04 10:19:27 PM|| 2004-12-04 10:19:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Mikey, Aris and Gloming Crank all at once. I'm gonna walk my dog down to the bar.

Posted by Sgt. D.T. 2004-12-04 10:22:21 PM|| 2004-12-04 10:22:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 "The growing demands that Kofi Annan resign as secretary general of the United Nations are preposterous. For him to do so would be extremely damaging not only to his organization but also to the United States."

That sentence right there is cuckoo to the max.

Posted by Korora 2004-12-04 10:46:53 PM|| [http://basementburrow.blogspot.com] 2004-12-04 10:46:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 That's why Mikey gets the bird...

Posted by Tom 2004-12-04 10:49:18 PM|| 2004-12-04 10:49:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Tom> Only when I run out of puppies to slaughter and nuns to rape.

Pardon me, Aris. I meant the liberals with whom I am familiar here in the U.S.,

Yeah, those were the liberals I was referring to also (American ones), and likewise with the conservatives (American ones again). Easier to compare within one nation. If I used my own nation, with four big parties ranging from conservative liberalism to socialdemocratic progressiveness to communistic authoritarianism, the comparison would be much more elaborate and confusing. I'm simplifying.

lex> I've seen apologia of dictators and murderers on both sides (right-wing apologia for Putin's actions on Chechnya for example, right-wing apologia for the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, the Contras, even the Apartheid).

The kind of far left that would support the Islamofascists isn't any more indicative of mainstream liberalism than the KKK is indicative of mainstream conservatism.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-04 10:57:17 PM|| 2004-12-04 10:57:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 The kind of far left that would support the Islamofascists isn't any more indicative of mainstream liberalism than the KKK is indicative of mainstream conservatism.

You're blind to what's happened in the US Democratic Party during the last two years. Take another look at the 2004 US Democratic Convention's guests of honor: one has traveled to and praised lavishly the wasteland that is North Korea, the other praises Zarqawi's fascists as heroic "minutemen" who will inevitably triumph over us. And also look at the positions of what has become one of the most influential grass-roots organizations for the Democratic Party, MoveOn.org.

Before you respond, you should learn more about he history of the anti-communist liberal Democratic Party wing that triumphed in Truman's day over the communist-appeasing Wallaceite wing.

Read carefully Peter Beinart's piece on this in the latest issue of The New Republic before you reply. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041213&s=beinart121304

Posted by lex 2004-12-04 11:15:02 PM|| 2004-12-04 11:15:02 PM|| Front Page Top

23:56 RWV
23:54 Phitle Craviter4997
23:41 Don
23:34 Zenster
23:34 Mufti Desai Knows All
23:29 FlameBait
23:26 Robert Crawford
23:25 Robert Crawford
23:23 ed
23:19 ed
23:15 lex
23:10 Barbara Skolaut
23:08 Phil Fraering
23:06 ed
23:01 Zenster
22:59 ed
22:57 Aris Katsaris
22:50 2b
22:49 Tom
22:46 Korora
22:45 FlameBait
22:40 .com
22:39 lex
22:39 ed