The Lord of War - Kofi Annan ?

Quote:

---

A million people died while this man stood by and vacillated.
Kofi Annan's reward is a peace prize and a lavish farewell party.
Should the UN secretary general be on trial ?

---

The case against

Quote:

---

1- Rwanda
The in 1994, Annan and the DPKO refused the UN commander General Romeo Dallaire permission to raid Hutu arms caches, despite his warning mass slaughter was planned, and failed to inform the security council and clarify the extent of the genocide

2- Srebrenica
That from July 6 to July 11 1995, Unprofor, the UN mission in Bosnia, repeatedly failed to authorise air strikes to save the town, despite having the means to do so, and was in grievious breach of its obligation to protect civilians

3- Darfur
That the UN, in particular the Dept of Political Affiars, repeatedly ignored reports from humanitarian officials of atrocities because they were politically invonvenient, and that the UN still refuses to take action to stop the slaughter.

---

I would like to hear your comments, I for one believe the UN is a waste of time and money. It should be there to save the most needy not turn away when they need help !!!!

People always remember the plaincrashes, not the thousands of flights that went well.

Many UN agencies do a good job. These should be removed from the UN and effectively the money given to other charities such as oxfam that do a similar job.

Kofi Annan has no power to do anything by himself. He can not order troops to appear, nor order them to war. Ergo, unpopular wars don't get fought.

When the UN has moved with purpose it is usually because it suits the desires of a group of countries, and there are no important ones that oppose. E.G. Korean war, first Iraq war.

The UN is there so that countries can wear blue helmets when persuing their own agenda.

He's done his best. But the Peace Prize? I think not. He has been richly rewarded enough legally (and possibly more on the side). Give Peace prize to someone who isn't merely doing his job (Annan) or has made peace by not causing war anymore (Jerry Adams).

A prime example. So after a mere 40 years, the USA decides it wants a meddle as it decides that altering the status quo is in their interests. China disagrees as it likes the status quo. Will anything happen? Well, China is a permanent member of the security council...

~:smoking:

I think Kofi has done an extremely good job, he has what is quite possible the most difficult job in the world, he is supposed to keep peace, but has no real power. He has certainly tries his best, but when countries like England and the US just ignore him it must be very hard to make a difference. The UN has no real power, however i think it is importnat to have an impartial body for international peace, it has made a difference, especially in smaller conflicts.

Most difficult job in the world? Please!

• He can't get fired.
• No shareholders to appease
• No real power, so non one really expects him to acheive anything.
• Very good salary
• Foreign travel at very nice hotels

I'd swop with him in a second. I'm used to squabbling malcontents, just this lot wear better suits than the ones I treat.


~:smoking:

I totally agree with Scurvy. The UN isn't perfect, but it's the best we have and in my opinion better than anything else humanity have tried so far.

Read up about his son and how he frauded the oil-for-food program. I don't believe that Kofi himself is a stainless figure either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurkhal

I totally agree with Scurvy. The UN isn't perfect, but it's the best we have and in my opinion better than anything else humanity have tried so far.

---

Quote:

---

Nobody knows how many people have died during the two-year conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region.

But the widely quoted United Nations figure of 70,000 is clearly wrong, because it was based on a study that does not include those killed in the violence and just covers a six-month period.


The UN says that more than two million of the estimated six million population have fled their homes, but the organisation is reluctant to suggest how many might have died in total.

Some analysts are estimating that the true death toll could be four or five times higher than the 70,000 figure.

---

As I said earlier as people die, they turn their backs
how much more murders do we need to have before the world can see that the UN is a waste of time

The UN is only as good as its members meke it and it dose some good in the world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zerg

The UN is only as good as its members meke it and it dose some good in the world

---

Quite right.

Until my son conquers the world, and the many nations of Earth kneel before his throne made of human skulls, the U.N. will be necessary. For the moment we must allow it to exist. But someday it will be crushed, like all man-made institutions, beneath the iron heel of my three-year-old boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zerg

The UN is only as good as its members meke it and it dose some good in the world

---

I think in the case of the UN, it's actually worse than the sum of it's parts.

As for Kofi, I'm just glad that he's leaving office- hopefully the next Secretary General will be less corrupt and feckless than he.

Go on Lemur , post the original .:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Until my son conquers the world, and the many nations of Earth kneel before his throne made of human skulls, the U.N. will be necessary. For the moment we must allow it to exist. But someday it will be crushed, like all man-made institutions, beneath the iron heel of my three-year-old boy.

---

Pff, human skull thrones are soo old school. :skull:

Outgoing SecGen Annan is an excellent symbolic figure. He embodies the characteristics of the UN quite nicely: its strengths, limitations, foibles and dreams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think in the case of the UN, it's actually worse than the sum of it's parts.

---

Why do you say that?

Because, for any "good" to occur all parties must agree.... but for it to allow "bad" to continue you only need a few holdouts. Therefore it's as bad as the individual flaws of its members combined.

Ah yes true, the UN could probably do with some re-forms, which is easer said than done. But given its limitations its a worthwhile thing to have in the world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

.... but for it to allow "bad" to continue you only need a few holdouts.

---

But the only countries with vetoes are the few on the Security Council? It's not as if every country can stall the UN.

I remember reading an argument that the Security Council veto was essential for the UN to be a success (as opposed to collapse, like the League of Nations). Only if the big boys were sure that the UN would never act against their wishes, would they support it. It's not an argument I had thought of, but it seems compelling.

True, but when their views are as diverse as they are it means that chances are on any mojor issue one side will have something to gain from preserving the status quo.

Even if they are not directly concerned, there may be other powers that would be grateful for them to use their veto.

~:smoking: