[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

Well what is the purpose of this thread? To exhonorate Koffi Annan from the human rights abuses that have occured not only under his watchfull eye, but often with assistance from the UN itself?

The purpose of this thread was the OFF program, and the scandal surrounding it. You continue to seemingly confuse Kofi Annan with an autonomous dictator who can prevent the worlds atrocities with the wave of his magic wand. You seem to confuse the flaws within the UN and its member states for the flaws of Kofi Annan, who took on the position in 1997, btw.

The job description of the Secretary-General is posted here if you're interested. It states:

"The Charter describes the Secretary-General as "chief administrative officer" of the Organization, who shall act in that capacity and perform "such other functions as are entrusted" to him or her by the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and other United Nations organs. The Charter also empowers the Secretary-General to "bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security"."

I think you're suggesting that the Oil-for-food scandal is based on fiction as a way to undermine the UN's standing, right? Should I really care if the 10% payoffs during the Oil for Food program were done legally through scam loopholes?

I don't believe it to be fiction, I believe it to be very real. However, in terms of its gravity, it isn't nearly as bad as what was going on outside the scope of the UN. Furthermore, culpability in the OFF scandal goes all around. As a source from the state department recently stated, we were aware of what was going on with the program, but were more worried that attempting to fix it would threaten the sanctions, which the OFF program had be started for in the first place.

The U.S., along with other industrialized powers, sat on the committee that saw over the program. NOT Kofi Annan.

Like I already said, I started a thread about Kofi Annan and his role in this scandal, and you've responded with why the UN sucks.

Didn't the UN re-elect the Sudanese to their human rights watchdog only last May (alongside Syria, and Libya as the chair)? Two months after they would make their first Resolution regarding Darfur... they didn't even threaten sanctions until September. Keep in mind the situation has been brewing over 18 years, and 2 million deaths, not counting the 70,000 recent murders. Nothing preventative was done and they STILL haven't labeled it genocide.

You're right, and this is wrong. But you're also wrong if you think Annan hasn't been an active voice in what has been happening there. What can Annan do? He can't personally impliment sanctions, he can't personally declare war on a sovereign nation (nor would we want him to have that ability, correct?).

Look at how Anaan handled Rwanda, where they certainly did have the ability to do more then they did, and you can see a pattern.
Didn't Annan refuse to send more troops when retired Canadian General Romeo Daillaire phoned in from Rwanda in a panic?

No. Your record of the matter is off. Annan, who was I believe Under-Secretary-General at the time, in fact pushed to get UNAMIR passed. UNAMIR was only mandated to enforce the Arusha Peace agreement between the Hutus and the Tutsis. It stated nothing about preemptive action, because had it, it would never have passed through the member nations.

However, when Daillaire brought this to Annan's attention, he instructed Daillaire to meet with Rwanda's president, and before doing so, to bring the problem to the attention of the ambassadors of France, Belgium, and the U.S. This is what the official inquiry into the matter shows.

Bringing these things to the attention of the Security Council, btw, is in the Secretary-General's job description. This all happened roughly three months prior to the genocide, yet only a few days prior to the beginning of the bloodshed, the S.C. merely passed Resolution 909, which merely reinforced UNAMIR's mandate. The S.C. did this, despit knowing full well what was cooking in Rwanda. This again was hardly "blood on the hands" of Kofi Annan.

The UN under Koffi Annan has blood on it's hands. Weren't 8,000 Bosnian Muslims massacred in 1995 while in the UN "safe area" of Srebrenica? Weren't IDF soldiers kidnapped while the UN videotaped the episode, and didn't they protected the identity of the guerilla operatives? There are countless stories of child prostitution rings organized by UN police in Bosnia, and similar accusations are coming out of the Congo too. There are run away chemical programs in N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Lybia and Pakistan... it goes on and on. I guess that is "proactive" depending on your motives though.

And I guess relevance isn't really your forte. Most of the things you've listed are out of the control of the Secretary-General, and are more a reflection of the weaknesses within the Security Council and the General Assembly. The UN isn't perfect, and bad things are going to happen under its watch. You've got me there. But that isn't really what we're talking about.

Like I said - We constantly hear that the UN should intervene in the rebuilding of Iraq, or that they should have been allowed to remedy these situation as an alternative to US interferance .... but their track record is incompitance, and shows little ability to take action towards a mandate to enforce a peacefull world union. I think you're ultimately missing the point though... Anaan already is a "maliable tool who rubber stamps initiatives", only he's placating the very nations who are responsible for a great deal of the injustice the UN is meant to combat.

Again, Kofi Annan can't vote on military action. He can't simply demand sanctions on a nation. What the U.S. detested about Annan were his words, his proclamations, and what sway they might have on the member nations and their votes. Annan is trusted around the world, and yes, within some pretty shityy countries. We want that trust, we want that p.r., because we want the ability to get shit done. The impulse isn't necessarily a bad one, but the methods are.