Kofi Fiddles While the World Burns

[madape]

Here's a brief history of the "leader of the free world", the "protector of humanity", and the man John Kerry would like to lead America's foreign policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------


UN chief's career clouded
By Per Ahlmark, former deputy prime minister of Sweden
May 03, 2004
NO other organisation is regarded with such respect as the United Nations. This is perhaps natural, for the UN embodies some of humanity's noblest dreams.

But, as the current scandal surrounding the UN's administration of the Iraq oil-for-food program demonstrates, and as the world remembers the Rwanda genocide that began 10 years ago, respect for the UN should be viewed as something of a superstition, with Secretary-General Kofi Annan as its false prophet.

Not since Dag Hammarskjold has a UN leader been as acclaimed as Annan. Up to a point, this is understandable. Annan usually maintains an unruffled, dignified demeanour. He has charm and – many say – charisma. But a leader ought to be judged by his or her actions when important matters are at stake. Annan's failures in such situations are almost invariably glossed over.

Between 1993 and 1996, Annan was assistant secretary-general for UN peacekeeping operations and then undersecretary-general.

One of the two great disasters for which he bears a large share of the blame is the Serbian slaughter of 7000 people in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, perhaps the worst massacre in post-war Europe.


In 1993, Bosnia's Muslims were promised that UN forces would protect them. This commitment was a precondition of their consent to disarm. The UN declared Srebrenica a "safe haven" to be "protected" by 600 Dutch UN troops.

In July 1995, Serb forces attacked. The UN did not honour its pledge. Annan's staff released evasive, confused statements. Oblivious, apparently, to the dreadfulness of the situation, they failed to sound the alarm properly and did nothing to intervene.

The Dutch fired not a single shot. NATO air power could have halted the Serbs, but Annan did not ask for NATO intervention.

Ratko Mladic, the Serb commander and war criminal, deported the women and children under the eyes of the UN, while capturing and murdering the men and adolescent boys.

No one should be surprised by the UN's inaction, because only the year before it had demonstrated utter incompetence in facing the fastest genocide in history – the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda in just 100 days. UN forces in Rwanda in 1994 were Annan's responsibility before and during the crisis.

Annan was alerted four months before Hutu activists began their mass killings by a fax message from Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general commanding UN forces in Rwanda. Dallaire described in detail how the Hutus were planning "anti-Tutsi extermination". He identified his source "a Hutu" and reported that arms were ready for the impending ethnic cleansing.

Dallaire requested permission to evacuate his informant and to seize the arms cache. Annan rejected both demands, proposing that Dallaire make the informant's identity known to Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, even though the informant had expressly named the president's closest entourage as the authors of the genocide blueprint.

Annan maintained his extreme passiveness even after the airplane crash that killed Habyarimana, which signalled the genocide's start, helped by the indifference of the great powers.

One might think Annan far too compromised to become secretary-general but the UN doesn't work that way. Instead of being forced to resign after Rwanda and Srebrenica, he was promoted to the post.

That is the culture of the UN: believe the best of barbarians, do nothing to provoke controversy among superiors, and let others be the butt of criticism afterwards. Even subsequent revelations about Annan's responsibility for the disasters in Rwanda and Bosnia did not affect his standing. On the contrary, he was unanimously re-elected and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The media sometimes ratchets up admiration for Annan by pointing out that his wife, Nane Annan, is Swedish and a close relative of Raoul Wallenberg. We are meant to infer that, on top of all his talents, Annan shares the ideals embodied during the last days of World War II by the foremost Swede of modern times.

But Wallenberg's name should make us even more dismayed about Annan's record. In Hungary, Wallenberg exploited every contact, resorting to shady tricks, bribes and other stratagems to save as many people as possible from the Holocaust. He never allowed himself to be duped by Hitler's cronies.

Perhaps no one's achievement should be judged by comparison with that of Wallenberg – a titan of strength, courage and perseverance.

Annan cannot plead he faced any risk to his safety, whereas Wallenberg in 1944 and 1945 was in constant peril. Nor can he excuse himself by saying no warnings were given, or that he lacked resources, or that he did not have the international position to intervene.

Annan had at his disposal all the instruments of power and opinion Wallenberg lacked. Yet, when thousands or hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to mortal threats he had the authority and duty to avert, alleviate, or at least announce, he failed.

Now, despite revelations about bribery in the UN's oil-for-food program for Iraq, the world is clamouring to entrust Annan with the future of more than 20 million Iraqis who survived Saddam Hussein dictatorship. That is because of who Annan is and what the UN has become: an institution in which no shortcoming, it seems, goes unrewarded.

[Mavdog]

Here's a brief history of the "leader of the free world", the "protector of humanity", and the man John Kerry would like to lead America's foreign policy

odd, I've never heard Kerry place Annan or the UN in that role. Have you?

Most agree the Iraqi forces would benefit from true international representation. The UN is one of only a few orgs that can accomplish that goal. If it realizes a Saddam-less somewhat stable Iraq, with less cost and losses to the US, how can one be against it?

[madape]

odd, I've never heard Kerry place Annan or the UN in that role. Have you?

Most agree the Iraqi forces would benefit from true international representation. The UN is one of only a few orgs that can accomplish that goal. If it realizes a Saddam-less somewhat stable Iraq, with less cost and losses to the US, how can one be against it?

If the #1 priority in Iraq is to save the lives of American G.I.s, I would agree with you. But that is not the goal. The goal from the beginning was to remove Saddam and to give the gift of Democracy to the Iraqi people. Anything outcome that falls short of these goals means failure. Giving the steering wheel to a clown like Annan and his riduculously inept organization would virtually ensure failure. This is unacceptable.

And last time I checked, we had national representation. Hundreds of soldiers from coalition participants have given their lives for this cause. If the Euro-cowards in France and Russia seem a little upset that they aren't involved, it's their own damn fault. We asked them up front if they wanted to participate. The invitation remains open, should they choose to accept it. However, they seem to be too busy buyinh cheap oil under the table from Saddam to stand up and do what was right. Their rightous indignation means about as much to me as a barrell full of horse poop.

Thanks to his pathetic efforts in Bosnia and Rwanda, hundreds of thousands have needlessly been slaughtered. He's failed in every major undertaking he's ever participated in at the UN. Under his watch, the UN has been relegated to near-irrelevance. Now it's very existance is threatened by scandalous profiteering that Anan seems to have been well aware of at the time.

Do YOU trust this man with the fate of Iraq? of our soldiers? of the middle east? of humanity?

The only thing this man should be in charge of is wiping his own ass.

He's an incompetent, idiotic, fool. Is there a man LESS qualified to lead the war on terror?

I can think of one... I won't tell you who I'm thinking of, but here's a hint: his initials are JFK.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: madape
odd, I've never heard Kerry place Annan or the UN in that role. Have you?

Most agree the Iraqi forces would benefit from true international representation. The UN is one of only a few orgs that can accomplish that goal. If it realizes a Saddam-less somewhat stable Iraq, with less cost and losses to the US, how can one be against it?


If the #1 priority in Iraq is to save the lives of American G.I.s, I would agree with you. But that is not the goal. The goal from the beginning was to remove Saddam and to give the gift of Democracy to the Iraqi people. Anything outcome that falls short of these goals means failure. Giving the steering wheel to a clown like Annan and his riduculously inept organization would virtually ensure failure. This is unacceptable.

oh, and all this time the WH has been calling it a part of the war on terror...that "goal" you state sounds right out of jimmy carter's playbook.
The iraqis can't be forced to be democratic, they must want it. Your "goal" may never be realized no matter how much men and money is spent.

And last time I checked, we had national representation. Hundreds of soldiers from coalition participants have given their lives for this cause. If the Euro-cowards in France and Russia seem a little upset that they aren't involved, it's their own damn fault. We asked them up front if they wanted to participate. The invitation remains open, should they choose to accept it. However, they seem to be too busy buyinh cheap oil under the table from Saddam to stand up and do what was right. Their rightous indignation means about as much to me as a barrell full of horse poop.

all well and good for your indignation, but the reality of the war is that american soldiers are represented 100:1. The costs are all ours as well. so much for the "national representation".

Thanks to his pathetic efforts in Bosnia and Rwanda, hundreds of thousands have needlessly been slaughtered. He's failed in every major undertaking he's ever participated in at the UN. Under his watch, the UN has been relegated to near-irrelevance. Now it's very existance is threatened by scandalous profiteering that Anan seems to have been well aware of at the time.

Annan wasn't the onlt UN voice to look the other way in Africa, and the US shares in that blame. As far as Iraq, you make the huge leap to place the Sec Gen of the UN in control.

Do YOU trust this man with the fate of Iraq? of our soldiers? of the middle east? of humanity?

noone is placing Kofi Annan in that position.

The only thing this man should be in charge of is wiping his own ass.

and he's always said such nice things about you...

He's an incompetent, idiotic, fool. Is there a man LESS qualified to lead the war on terror?

I can think of one... I won't tell you who I'm thinking of, but here's a hint: his initials are JFK.

oh, there's plenty of people (you exclude women?) "less qualified", and some of them are currently making our government's policy towards terrorism.

[madape]

Chad's poor left to help each other
(Filed: 14/05/2004)


While the UN dithers in Sudan, the people of Chad struggle to avert disaster. Adrian Blomfield reports

If it does not rain, and nothing else stops the lorries lumbering into the Chadian town of Tine, Ali Didou Harif can probably take home £15 a month from unloading goods in the markets. With that kind of money, his wife, Salma, and their three young children, are guaranteed a helping of sickly smelling sorghum porridge on most days. Despite such poverty, Mr Didou is still ready to help those even less fortunate than himself.

In the past year, Tine's population has more than doubled as refugees have poured out of the Darfur region of western Sudan, fleeing Arab militiamen mounted on horses and camels who are waging a campaign of ethnic cleansing against their black Muslim neighbours. Many could only watch as members of their families were executed by the Janjaweed, as the militiamen are known. Most lost their possessions when their houses were burned down. All were exhausted after walking for days through the desert.

Now they have collapsed in towns along the border in one of the most destitute regions of Chad, which is itself among the world's poorest countries. The United Nations has described the war in Darfur as the world's worst humanitarian crisis at the moment. It is running an emergency relief programme for Darfur refugees but will not operate on the border, saying it is too dangerous.

Families have been waiting for up to two months, their lives at risk from shelling, cross-border militia raids and water shortages, to transfer to UN camps 20 miles into Chad. Aid workers from other agencies have accused the UN of inefficiency and perhaps worse.

"What is going on here is very dark," said one western aid worker at a non-UN agency. "Money seems to have disappeared. Who knows whether it has been stolen or whether it has just disappeared in the UN machine. The inefficiency is astounding."

Refugees cannot walk into the half-empty camps. Regulations demand that they must be turned away if they do. It would seem that the United Nations has run out of money. Lorries supposed to transport refugees to the camps lie stranded as there is not enough for fuel. Drivers have been on strike because they have not been paid for a month. While the refugees wait to be transferred, the people of the border towns, members of the same Zaghawa tribe as the refugees, are helping their neighbours.

"What could I do?" asked Mr Didou. "I could not just watch as my kinsmen starved." So he took in Ali Abdat Kardat and his three children, whose village was razed by the Janjaweed in January. Mr Abdat was nearly dead when he reached Tine. He had been forced to watch as Janjaweed militiamen took it in turns to rape his 27-year-old wife, Zahara, until she died. He was then whipped until the skin was virtually scourged from his back. "I had never even met him but Ali took me to his home and rubbed ointment in my back every day," he said, sitting outside Mr Didou's hut.

The government in Khartoum has responded brutally to the rebellion. The black Muslims in Darfur feel they are being left out financially and politically from a peace settlement to end the 21-year war in Sudan's south. Sudanese government aircraft have bombed Tine in recent months while the Janjaweed, who are armed by Khartoum, have conducted cross-border raids against both the refugees and their Chadian hosts.

Crowded together on a mat outside Mr Didou's hut, two families sit quietly as Salma divides the porridge into tiny portions. One of the children's stomach rumbles, prompting a collective giggle. "Praise be to Allah" says Mr Didou, raising a plastic cup of water. It is not just food that is being shared. Salma cut up her spare dress to make clothes in shocking pink for the new children in her family.

For all the goodwill, things are becoming desperate in Tine. The charity Medecins sans Frontieres has done what it can, vaccinating against meningitis, feeding those on the brink of starvation and digging some wells. Even so, water is running out. Mr Abdat and his family, like many other refugees, have applied to the UN to move to a refugee camp 30 miles in land. They have been waiting for two months.

Tens of thousands are in a similar predicament, prompting accusations of UN bungling. Refugees cannot walk into the half-empty camps - regulations demand they be turned away if they do. The rainy season is expected to start in the next few weeks. The dry river valleys that cross the dusty roads leading to Chad's border towns will fill with water, meaning that the refugees will be stranded.

The shortage of water in Tine has already meant much of the town's livestock has died. Donkey and goat carcasses, half buried in the sand, litter the town and a makeshift refugee camp on its outskirts. The stench of death is everywhere. In Darfur itself more than a million others who have fled their homes languish untended and unfed in isolated camps.

Khartoum has denied humanitarian access to all but a few. Where food has been distributed, Janjaweed raids are more frequent, part of a deliberate policy of starvation orchestrated by Khartoum, say human rights activists. As dusk falls in Tine hundreds of new refugees straggle into the town - not all from Darfur but from a village to the north.

The villagers, like their fellow tribesmen in Tine, had shared what they had with refugees until water supplies were exhausted. Left with no choice, they were moving to Tine, itself stretched to breaking point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet another genocide happening on Kofi's watch. I wish he he and his pals would stop counting thier stolen cash long enough to do their jobs.

[LRB]

The iraqis can't be forced to be democratic, they must want it.

Damn I wish we'd realized that about Japan after World War II or Germany for that matter. I guess we've just been fooling ourselves. [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

[u2sarajevo]

Kofi plays the fiddle?

Cool, so he has some Southern culture workin'.

I think I'd like to watch as he rosens up his bow.

[LRB]

The UN is one of the most testicular challenged organizations in the world. They may be good for a very few limited things, but keeping the peace is not one of them.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Damn I wish we'd realized that about Japan after World War II or Germany for that matter. I guess we've just been fooling ourselves. [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

Clearly you have been fooling yourself if you disagree.

Germany had a prior acceptance and tradition of democracy, and for that matter Japan to a ltd degree. The population of these countries embraced democracy and rejected totalitarianism.

Do you honestly believe that a people can be forced to embrace a political structure, especially one that requires their participation in, that they do not wish to embrace? Can we force Iraqis to be tolerant and accepting of a multi-party political process, respecting minority opinions, if the majority collectively do not want to such?
no, it cannot succeed.

[LRB]

Germany had a prior acceptance and tradition of democracy, and for that matter Japan to a ltd degree. The population of these countries embraced democracy and rejected totalitarianism.

Well the same can be said for Iraq. Also know that we lost more soldiers in Germany alone in postwar occupation than we have in Iraq.

I have seen no compelling evidence that the Iraqis wish to cling to totalitarianism. On the contrary I'm seen lots of evidence to indicate otherwise. Yes there are those who don't want a democracy and are resisting, but not anymore than in post WWII Germany or Japan. In fact it could be argued that the opposition is much less. And we shouldn't look for this change to happen over night. Look how long it took both Japan and Germany. Will it be easy? No, it won't be. Is it possible? Hell yes!!! But not if American lacks the political backbone to stay the course.

BTW as for enforcing acceptance of diverse political and minority groups under US troops, we have a long history of success and you need not travel beyond our own borders to see this. The 82nd Airborne Division is famous for keeping the majority at bay while the first black children attended an all white school in Little Rock, Arkansas. And this isn't the only case.

[Mavdog]

How can the "same be said for Iraq"??? They have NEVER experienced a democratic political structure. All they have known for several generations is an autocratic, totalitarian militaristic society with no rule of law and protection for the monority views.

have seen no compelling evidence that the Iraqis wish to cling to totalitarianism. On the contrary I'm seen lots of evidence to indicate otherwise. Yes there are those who don't want a democracy and are resisting, but not anymore than in post WWII Germany or Japan. In fact it could be argued that the opposition is much less

So far there is no basis to predict that Iraq will embrace diversity and democracy. I'd like to see what "evidence" you believe you have that supports the view that they have accepted democracy. They can come to the acceptance, but as I stated before it cannot be forced for if it is, it's not democracy is it?
There were NOT instances of armed resistance to Allied troops post Axis surrender BTW. I'd argue that the opposition is clearly MORE than in post WW2 Europe.

BTW as for enforcing acceptance of diverse political and minority groups under US troops, we have a long history of success and you need not travel beyond our own borders to see this. The 82nd Airborne Division is famous for keeping the majority at bay while the first black children attended an all white school in Little Rock, Arkansas. And this isn't the only case

You want to compare an instance of the use of federal troops in Arkansas to enforce a SCOUS decision to the situation in Iraq? Let me remind you that there had been 175 years of democratic tradition in the US, there is NONE in Iraq. Not comparable in the least.
Got any other cases?

[LRB]

Actually Iraq did have some expericence with democracy in pre-Saddam days. And Iraqi complaints are rather mild overall, but the ones who do complain are plastered all over the news. Yes there are some thugs still running around, because we are still at war with terrorists we are facing some at least semi-organized resistance from them. This is not unlike Germany before the official surrender or even Italy after it's surrender. Our ground forces did not reach the Japanese home islands before their surrender so no comparison there.

Democracy can be forced to a degree. It was upon Japan. But there does need to be at least some level of desire among the general population to accept it. I haven't seen anything in Iraq to convince me that the general population is diametrically opposed to democracy. Sure there are a few extremists who hog the newscasts, but they're only a small part of the population. Quiet acceptance wouldn't be very news worthy and would not match the political agendas of many news agencies. Still a few pro-democracy stories do filter out.

While the armed resistance might be more than in either post surrender Japan or post surrender Germany, it is still relatively small and a good part of it comes from a foe, al Queda, who we are still very much at war with. But what I was referring to was resistance by the people to accept the government that we tried to, successfully I might add, install in Germany and Japan. This process took years and was met with many difficulties. Establishing a working police force free of Nazi infulence was a major and lengthy undertaking by itself.

You want to compare an instance of the use of federal troops in Arkansas to enforce a SCOUS decision to the situation in Iraq? Let me remind you that there had been 175 years of democratic tradition in the US, there is NONE in Iraq. Not comparable in the least.
Got any other cases?

Actually there are lots of similarities. In both cases US troops were used. In both cases the majority of the local population objected to the policies being put in place. I can go on. Of course there are significant differences as well. But it should also be noted that an occupation of Iraq by American troops has never failed nor has any occupations extremely similar with virtually no differences. Why? Because there hasn't been another situation that did not have significant differences. So all we can use for comparison are situations with significant differences.

But you asked "Do you honestly believe that a people can be forced to embrace a political structure, especially one that requires their participation in, that they do not wish to embrace? " And the example was one in which this did happen. So yes it is possible to force a people ot embrace a political structure which requires their participation and which they do not wish to embrace. Of course this doesn't prove that we will be successful in Iraq. But it shoots down your argument as to why we couldn't be successful. And yes I can bring up other cases, but I only need one to shoot your argument down. You made an absolute statment which only needs to be shown to be wrong once to disprove it. Had you said something like "most times", then you have to show that this is not the case with numerous examples.

So essentially it comes down to your opinion that we won't succeed in Iraq. That's OK, but it is an opinion. There are no relevant proofs according to you becasue it doesn't count if there are significant differences between the situation cited and the current one. There are no such situations that can be used, so we're down to dueling opinions with only time that can decide the winner if we play by your rules.

[Mavdog]

But there does need to be at least some level of desire among the general population to accept it

Then in essence we agree.

Actually there are lots of similarities. In both cases US troops were used. In both cases the majority of the local population objected to the policies being put in place.

The 'local population" was accepting of the rule of law, the adherence to the political process, the allegiance to a state. There was no armed revolt in Arkansas, was there?
want to try again?

So essentially it comes down to your opinion that we won't succeed in Iraq

what? I never made that prediction, and I won't make one. There is still a long road ahead in Iraq, it's impossible to say which way this is going to play out.

[LRB]

Actually there are lots of similarities. In both cases US troops were used. In both cases the majority of the local population objected to the policies being put in place.

The 'local population" was accepting of the rule of law, the adherence to the political process, the allegiance to a state. There was no armed revolt in Arkansas, was there?
want to try again?

Nice of you to quote out of context so. Try using the full quote or at least keep things in context.

Actually there are lots of similarities. In both cases US troops were used. In both cases the majority of the local population objected to the policies being put in place. I can go on. Of course there are significant differences as well. But it should also be noted that an occupation of Iraq by American troops has never failed nor has any occupations extremely similar with virtually no differences. Why? Because there hasn't been another situation that did not have significant differences. So all we can use for comparison are situations with significant differences.

So essentially it comes down to your opinion that we won't succeed in Iraq

what? I never made that prediction, and I won't make one. There is still a long road ahead in Iraq, it's impossible to say which way this is going to play out.

Good, then don't believe that our fate has already been determined in Iraq. At least we can agree on this. Hopefully we can hope for the best for us and the Iraqis as well even if we disagree on the particulars of how to obtain it.

[Mavdog]

It's not out of context.
The rest of the paragraph is nonsensical.

You've agreed with my premise, so why continue?

[LRB]

Sigh. No, I did not agree with your premise that the two incidents were not comparable in the least. Yes, I did agree with that they were not identical and that there were significant differences. I went on to say that if your requirements were no significant differences in examples used, then there were no comparable incidents for or against that could be used. Having the full context makes the majority of your response nonsensical. Why? 1st of all I already agreed that there was significant differences. And I went on to state that no incidents existed which would meet your narrow criteria of acceptance. Hence the question "want to try again?" would have clear been shown as absurd and argumentative.

And it is rather ridiculous that you try and shoot holes in a statement that was used to refute an unqualified remark that you made as a general assumption that did not just pertain to Iraq because my refutal was not the same as the Iraqi situation. It would be best to restate your original premise with the previously implied but unstated qualifications. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by stating that you did imply those qualifications.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Sigh. No, I did not agree with your premise that the two incidents were not comparable in the least. Yes, I did agree with that they were not identical and that there were significant differences. I went on to say that if your requirements were no significant differences in examples used, then there were no comparable incidents for or against that could be used. Having the full context makes the majority of your response nonsensical. Why? 1st of all I already agreed that there was significant differences. And I went on to state that no incidents existed which would meet your narrow criteria of acceptance. Hence the question "want to try again?" would have clear been shown as absurd and argumentative.

my premise was "The iraqis can't be forced to be democratic, they must want it."
You later stated "But there does need to be at least some level of desire among the general population to accept it [democracy]."
Therefore you agree with my premise.

And it is rather ridiculous that you try and shoot holes in a statement that was used to refute an unqualified remark that you made as a general assumption that did not just pertain to Iraq because my refutal was not the same as the Iraqi situation. It would be best to restate your original premise with the previously implied but unstated qualifications. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by stating that you did imply those qualifications.

it's ridiculous to continue when you agreed with my premise.

[madape]

Now we have a UN sex abuse scandal.

Apparently UN peacekeeping troops are exploiting child rape refugees from the Congo.

q: What do you get a UN peacekeeper who has everything?
a: A dozen child prosititutes from the Congo. It'll cost you only ten bananas!

UN troops buy sex from teenage refugees in Congo camp

Hey, at least the UN peacekeepers weren't pointing at their genetals. That would have been a REAL travesty.

[madape]

...yet another scandal. This time, Kofi and the gang are lending Palestinian terrorists official UN ambulances to smuggle arms into palestine, and to use as cover to actually CARRY OUT terrorist activities against Israeli soldiers and private citizens.


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38747


Absolutely unbeleivable.

[madape]

"If a man is incompetent, he should be FIRED".. Richard Dreyfus

UN staff ready historic no-confidence vote in Annan

Fri Nov 19, 6:50 AM ET World - AFP



UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - UN employees are expected to issue an unprecedented vote of no confidence in Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), union sources say, after he pardoned the body's top oversight official over a series of allegations.

The UN staff union, in what officials said was the first vote of its kind in the more than 50-year history of the United Nations (news - web sites), was set to approve a resolution withdrawing support for the embattled Annan and senior UN management.

Annan has been in the line of fire over a high-profile series of scandals including controversy about a UN aid programme that investigators say allowed deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to embezzle billions of dollars.

Staffers said the trigger for the no-confidence measure was an announcement this week that Annan had pardoned the UN's top oversight official, who was facing allegations of favouritism and sexual harassment.

The union had requested a formal probe into the behaviour of the official, Dileep Nair, after employees accused him of harassing members of his staff and violating UN rules on the hiring and promotion of workers.

Top UN spokesman Fred Eckhard announced on Tuesday that Nair had been exonerated by Annan "after a thorough review" by the UN's senior official in charge of management, Catherine Bertini.

Annan underlined that he "had every confidence" in Nair, Eckhard said, but UN employees ridiculed the decision and claimed that investigators had not questioned the staff union, which first raised the complaints in April.

"This was a whitewash, pure and simple," Guy Candusso, a senior member of the staff union, told AFP.

Candusso noted that Eckhard's declaration to the press had said that "no further action was necessary in the matter."

But in a letter sent to the union, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, Annan's chief of staff Iqbal Riza said Nair had been "advised that he should exercise caution" in future to "minimise the risk of negative perception."

In a resolution set to be adopted on Friday, the union said Riza's statement "substantiates the contention of the staff that there was impropriety" and that there exists "a lack of integrity, particularly at the higher levels of the organisation."

The draft resolution, also obtained exclusively by AFP, calls on the union president to "convey this vote of no confidence to the secretary general."

Staffers who asked not to be named, afraid that speaking out could damage their future prospects in the United Nations, said the Nair decision was an example of corruption by Annan and his senior staff.

They noted that Riza, UN undersecretary general for information Shashi Tharoor and other top officials had served directly under Annan at least since 1994, when he was head of UN peacekeeping operations.

At the time, the United Nations was widely criticised for failing to stop the Rwanda genocide that left 800,000 people dead, even though UN peacekeepers were on the ground -- a catastrophe for which Annan has publicly apologised.

Annan could not be reached for immediate comment. He is currently in Africa on a high-profile mission aimed at ending the long-running civil war in Sudan.

The latest crisis comes as Annan faces unprecedented calls to resign over the burgeoning scandal about "oil-for-food," a UN aid scheme that US investigators say allowed Saddam to siphon off billions of dollars.

The programme has tainted longtime UN officials like Benon Sevan, who oversaw the operation and is now accused of pocketing Saddam's money in exchange for turning a blind eye to the Iraqi dictator's abuses.

Annan stands accused of obstructing US investigators, especially since his hand-picked official Paul Volcker this week rejected calls from the US Senate to turn over documents from the programme and waive UN staff immunity.

Eckhard, his spokesman, on Thursday said that Annan is expected to serve out his term, which ends in 2006.

Veteran UN staff said this was the first time in history that employees had risen up en masse to make a vote of no confidence in a sitting secretary general.

"Kofi Annan is surrounded by corruption, a gang of criminals responsible for some of the worst things that happened to mankind in the 20th century," said one angry staffer, referring to the Rwanda massacres.

"It's possible that he doesn't know directly what has gone on," said the employee, who has worked for the United Nations for two decades. "But that's no excuse."

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
It's not out of context.
The rest of the paragraph is nonsensical.

You've agreed with my premise, so why continue?

LRB had to sigh after this. I understand LRB. Whenever this moron is losing (which is always) or shown to be a fool (which is inherent in each and every post), he just makes the same old tired out of the heiney post like this. You agree with me...thanks for proving my point...blah blah blah ad nauseum. Same shat another day.....[img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[Road Rage]

[madape]

Kofi must go


National Post


December 6, 2004

Last Wednesday, Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota and co-chairman of the U.S. Senate subcommittee investigating the United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq, called on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resign in a commentary published in The Wall Street Journal. While Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China quickly rallied to Mr. Annan's defence, there can be no doubt that the senator is correct: Mr. Annan has to go.

As Mr. Coleman argues, "the most extensive fraud in the history of the United Nations occurred on [Mr. Annan's] watch." Over the decade-long run of the oil-for-food program, the UN and several member states looked on as Saddam Hussein siphoned off at least 20% of its $100-billion revenues for his personal use. Hundreds of millions went to rebuilding the Iraqi army; more was paid out in kickbacks to Western politicians, governments, political parties, journalists and UN officials who looked the other way. Tens of millions funded terrorist training and operations around the world, particularly among Palestinians. The grandiose, sprawling palaces U.S. troops discovered when they liberated Baghdad and other Iraqi cities were constructed by Saddam and his family with the proceeds from oil sales meant to pay for food and medicines for ordinary Iraqis. Critics of the American- and British-backed sanctions against Iraq that were in place from the early 1990s until the 2003 invasion claimed they were responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis per year through malnutrition and disease. But we now know it was Saddam's lust for gold plumbing fixtures and weapons that caused the lion's share of Iraqi hardship.

Under Mr. Annan's leadership, the UN feigned blindness to all this. To make matters worse, it recently became clear that Mr. Annan's son Kojo was a beneficiary of oil-for-food largesse. The Swiss firm appointed to certify that Iraqi oil sale proceeds were indeed going to buy human essentials (which clearly was not doing its job) paid the junior Annan hundreds of thousands of dollars in untendered consulting contracts. And while Mr. Annan once claimed Kojo's financial affiliation with the company ended long ago, it has now come to light that it continued till well after Saddam's fall from power.

U.S. President George W. Bush signalled his lack of faith in Mr. Annan on Thursday by refusing to say whether the Ghanaian-born diplomat should keep his job till the end of his second five-year term, which expires in December of 2006. It's a wonder Mr. Bush was able to be so restrained. Twice during the recent U.S. election campaign, Mr. Annan tried to help out John Kerry by criticizing Mr. Bush's "illegal" invasion of Iraq -- an unprecedented intervention by a secretary-general.

Even putting Iraq and the oil-for-food scandal aside, the case against Mr. Annan is damning. While Mr. Annan made some early progress in streamlining the United Nations' grotesquely bloated bureaucracy, he has since presided over a crisis in staff confidence, in part thanks to his bungled efforts to sweep aside sexual harassment charges against one of his deputies. Two weeks ago, UN workers in New York City voted that they had lost faith in the Secretary-General's ability and that of his senior administrators.

Mr. Annan has also watched as the UN Human Rights Commission has degenerated into a laughingstock run by some of the worst human-rights abusers in the world. He has refused to stop the UN agency responsible for delivering humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees from assisting terrorists. And from Rwanda to Srebrenica, East Timor to Sudan, he has time and again permitted himself to be conned by tyrants and butchers while they have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Given all this, it is amazing to think that Mr. Annan was once thought to be a man who could help reform the United Nations. Indeed, he was originally the Americans' choice for his position (mostly because they were keen to prevent the even more inept Boutros Boutros-Ghali from winning a second term in 1996). But whether or not he was the wrong choice from the get-go, or a good man whose leadership came to progressively resemble the stunning dysfunctionality of the organization he was picked to run, there is no doubt that his tenure as the United Nations' leader should end as soon as possible.