[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

First of all, Kofi Annan was the head of UN peacekeeping operations as far back 1994.

Right. Go look up what his official title was, look at what I said, and then get back to me.

I get the feeling you're so enamored with Annan that you've convinced yourself he's above acountability. Was he nice to you during an internship or something?

Hysterical.

He's the foreman of an "impartial" body that makes up the UN's eyes and ears... and like any administrative scandal - someone has to take the fall. Painting him as a powerless spokesmen is inacurrate. His job is to oversee hundreds of agencies, funds, and programs in addition to acting as the public face for the UN.

I agree that his job is to "oversee hundreds of agencies, funds, and programs in addition to acting as the public face for the UN." But you can't compare him to the executive we have here for example, or even the CEO of a corporation. Annan can't declare a military strike, he CAN'T place sanctions on anybody he likes, he can't etc. etc. I'm getting tired of saying this over and over. You seem to dislike Annan a lot for things that he can't take sole blame for. What, were you declined an internship in his office....?

Article 99 gives him direct power to advise the security council in the case of a potential international crisis, and this has been the standard practice since Trygve Lie did it with the Soviet invasion of Iran. Leaving him in control of a General Assembly who doesn't want him isn't the smoothest way to pander to a bunch corrupt nations...mostly autocracies, and psuedo democracies. Even the corrupt UN isn't happy that he pardoned Dileep Nair the UN's top oversight official before a proper probe of his aledged misconduct took place. Integrity is one of the main qualifications for the position.

He most certainly did make a mistake there, and we're finally talking about something that you can blame him for entirely. Should he resign over this? In my opinion, no, but that'll ultimately be up to the members next year.

He has "advised" he security council. That's what he has the ability to do, but he can't vote for them, nor can he reverse their decisions.

Annan did have the ability to do more in Rwanda, and he's apologized for it.

Your a bit off on this again. He has apologized, yes, because he wishes there were more that his body could've done in response. He regrets not having the ability to act preemptively with UNAMIR, which once again, he knows damn well wouldn't have even been approved if it involved unprovoked UN intervention in Rwanda.

Their man on the ground thought it was preventable and points the finger at Annan.

ANNAN TOLD HIM TO ADVISE RWANDA, BELGIUM, FRANCE, AND THE U.S.! THIS WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THOSE THREE NATIONS ROUGHLY THREE(!) MONTHS PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE GENOCIDE! WHY CAN'T YOU FOLLOW THIS!??

The UN itself is not powerless. It took action with Korea, Iraq/Kuwait in the past,

Did the Secretary-General, or the Under-Secretary-General of peace keping operations, decide that the UN would do these things? CAN the Secretary-General simply say "well, we're going to stop Saddam's invasion of Kuwait by force."

Of course the UN isn't powerless. But it was deliberately built with a weak executive, so that the member nations, particularly those in the S.C., would dictate the bulk of its actions. This is the way it should be, but you can't sit here and scream about all the wrongs the UN has committed over the course of its existence, and then say "Annan has blood on his hands." If Annan has blood on his hands, its far less than that which is all over the hands of the Security Council.

and in the course of remaining impartial, they actually removed troops that were on the ground in Rwanda - which by default suggests a certain aggressive partiality by default towards Governments, allowing them to do their dirty work, no matter how dirty. It's this "impartiality that made Tibetan Budhist, Rwandan Tutsis, Lebanese Christians, Iraqi Kurds, and Black African Muslims in the Sudan all vulnerable. Annan continues to appease violent nations through bureacracy until it's too late, rather then confronting it them head on, and we're seeing this repeated once again with Darfur.

I'm not repeating myself. Fin.