The UN Oil-for-Food scandal

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

I'm saying their lack of want or ability to stop abuse is exactly what does make them ineffectual. Yet, you still hear people suggesting the UN should step in and act as a peace keeping body when they do not have that capability.

And I'll ask you again, what precisely should/could the UN have done in order to prevent the janjaweed from commiting their actions? Could the UN disarm the militants hired by the Sudanese government? Prior to Colin Powell, the only guys who were really raising hell over Darfur were Ambassador Danforth and Kofi Annan.

The point of this thread is him, not necessarily how effective the UN is. However, I think that's truly what the drive behind ousting Annan is all about. I don't know what your opinion on the UN is, whether you want to see it fixed, abolished, etc.

What these people harping over OFF want isn't an effectual UN. They don't believe in the UN, they detest the UN, and I don't believe they'd ever want to even SEE a UN capable of preventing some of the atrocities you've mentioned.

Darfur - they were there, and watched it happen. They didn't recognize it, they didn't resolve conflict, they didn't keep peace, they didn't do anything. No sanctions. No refugee organizations like the UNRWA. Nothing. What is their purpose? It's absurd that in 2001, the UN picked Darfur as the location for a symposium on racism, where the main topic was Zionism instead of the brewing situation in Darfur itself!

As I said before, the UN is a sum of all its parts. The UN is only as effectual and as solvent as its member nations. I'm not here to argue that the UN is perfect, nor do I even desire to see it try to be.

Like most things in Africa, EVERYBODY turned a blind eye until the last moment. The U.S. is still reluctant to refer to Darfur as genocide. This is the most powerful member of the UN. Kofi Annan can't make the UN do anything drastic that the member nations won't support (which once again, is probably a good thing, but hardly a reason to force Annan out).

Regarding their conduct in Gaza, and Bosnia.... look into it. I'm not here to give a lecture. If you don't have the background on them to know what I'm alluding too, then you probably shouldn't be defending them in the first place or making cute comments.

No, if you're going to interject comments that aren't even entirely relevant to the topic at hand, and then make snide little comments, it's your job then to substantiate your arguments, not mine. I know you know your shit, and I'm not trying to have some sort of a contest or fLaMe WaR with you. But I think you're again missing the boat here. Is the UN in need of reform? Yes. Could it serve the world better in terms of diplomacy and intervention? Yes, but that'll never happen, and it's not the goal of the Annan critics, either.

Their goal is to further undermine the UN, to strip Annan of all credibility entirely, thus attempting to make him more compliant. These people don't want an activist SG that intervenes in global conflicts and pontificates on the plight of the world. They want a maliable tool who will rubber stamp whatever initiatives they see fit (see Annan's vote of confidence from the U.S.).

The corruption scandals are rampant (check the news today?) and it's only the beginning.

The beginning to what? As I've already said, the funds that were misused through OFF don't even compare to activity beyond the program.

Saying the UN program in Iraq helped "some people" is akin to saying life under Saddam was great because they had regular scheduled garbage pick ups (an argument you actually used once... talk about pretentious).

Well, that's not exactly what I said, and since it's yet another attempt by you to derail the topic, I won't even dignify it.

Th OFF program was a response to the sanctions placed on Iraq by the ineffectual UN. The sanctions, as well as Saddam, were clearly hurting the Iraqi people, particularly children, which had been noted by UNICEF.

They did in fact help people, regardless of the abuses in the system. The abuses in the system were not Annan's doing, nor were they what he wished to see.

And I'll say it again-- the U.S. sat on the committee that approved the OFF contracts. This went right by us. Yet for some reason, it's Kofi Annan's head that should roll. Why?