Tim Blair

He's "very disappointed and surprised" but not "deeply concerned"?

Art,I think the 'disappointment and surprise' comes more from the fact that the newsworthy incident actually made it into print!

I dont think its fair to crucify Kofi Annan over this.

His son is an independant individual, the father no longer has control over his son and doesnt actively involve himself in his activities. This is as it should be, when children have grown up and are living their own lives, the parents have no right to interfere. So it is perfectly reasonable for Kofi Annan to not have a clue that his son was recieving these payments.

I highly doubt that Kofi Annan had anything to do with these payments either, or that this should somehow reflect badly on him or the UN. As you can see in the article the payment arrangement was entirely legal and reasonable.

From what I can see here Kofi Annan is not to blame for this. It is likely that this was brought to the media's attention by a politically motivated individual wanting to further discredit Mr. Annan for his own purposes.

Yes, the Oil for Food program is looking just a bit dodgy right now and Kofi Annan may have other faults, but this latest occurance should not be a black mark on the record of a man who I believe to have done a great amount of good for the international community.

Nic,
Could you outline what you think his significant achievements are? (I'm not being a smartarse, I just want to hear the case.)

Play fair fidens! That's a bit of a tough question isn't it?

Actually, it would be very bad if Havel became Secretary General. The UN in concept and execution is working against freedom and security in the world. No other conclusion is possible when the likes of Cuba and Libya are members of the UN Human Rights Commission. Someone like Havel would temporarily hide this fact by the dint of own unquestioned moral courage. Far better that the UN be fronted by the kleptocrats, knaves, time-servers, and goons that typify its behind-the-scenes membership.

It's like truth in advertising.

"The Oild for Food program is looking a bit dodgy right now?"

In other news, Francisco Franco is looking slightly less perky than in his youth. Water is rumored to be slightly damp. And Tokyo had some minor urban renewal projects in 1945.

Yeah like cujo would be anywhere without daddy

"The United Nations: Like The Cosa Nostra, But Blue"

To name a few good things that hes done and some things hes said that make him worthy of my respect:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1697088.stm
http://members.tripod.com/~Tetworld/ijhp3.html
Won a nobel peace prize: http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=1795&Cr=Nobel&Cr1=Prize
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec99/annan_bio_10-18.html

Theres obviously a lot more, but I dont really have the time to sit around pumping out links all day. Kofi Annan strikes me as a wise, upright man who genuinely wants to make the world a better place and believes the UN is an organization that can do that. He has done little to tarnish the respect that I hold for him.

I remember back in 1998 there was a serious possiblity that there would be a second Gulf War as Saddam was refusing to allow weapons inspectors access. I can remember everyone being extremely worried about the situation. Kofi Annan was the one who solved this situation.

Im not saying hes perfect, it could be argued that he has been too passive on a number of issues such as Ruwanda (but so was everyone else in the world), but overall I think the scales are well in his favour.

Rather I think the problems with the UN are to do with its organization, something that has been around for decades. The veto power is the biggest problem I can see. The UN has the reputation of being a lame duck these days, but this is mostly because no one is able to agree with anyone else and this becomes many times worse when the big guns throw their veto power around.
You cannot blame the man at the top for everything wrong with the organisation that he leads, especially when it has been around so long.

Youre all treating him like a scapegoat, perhaps you should look at the real problems within the UN itself that would take more than one man to solve.

Say Nic I have a selection of fine bridges, going cheap, previously owned by a little old Nigerian Finance Minister. What do you say?

perhaps you should look at the real problems within the UN itself that would take more than one man to solve.

Indeed, Nic, it would take more than one man to solve the problems within the UN. You would need a whole team of construction workers (or failing that, five muslim males) to demolish the UN building, numerous accountants to locate the misappropriated funds, a squadron of police to arrest the staff, a massive legal team to prosecute them for corruption and being accessories to terrorism & genocide, and an artist to construct a sculpture on the site prominently featuring the words "Never Again".

The "resolution" in Iraq after 1998 set the scene for 5 years of unchecked action by Saddam on WMD programs and reaping of Food for Palaces money that propped up the regime. Rather than resolve the problem it ensured an ongoing US military presence in Saudi Arabia which in a small part motivated Bin Laden and the who cadre of Islamic Fascists to continue against the US. It is a moot point, but that delay was the wrong move at the time and history will judge it harshly for the unjust suffering it brought upon the Iraqi people.

Nic, I hope you have more then him appearing on Sesame Street, wining the nobel peace prize and a list failed attempts at negotiations that he blames others for.

When all is tallied up a wilfully naive person can do just as much damage as a megalomaniac.

...Won a nobel peace prize:

Woohaahahaha...

Considering that Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat both have one of these prized paperweights, I'd rate it somewhere below winning a Golden Globe or MTV movie award.

So Clem, you appear to hate the UN. What do you propose as an alternative?

JBB, I think your linking of the 1998 resolution to the activities of Bin Laden and thus to the "suffering brought upon Iraqi people" is just a little far-fetched. At any rate, the alternative to the 1998 resolution was war, so if youre so concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people then you will agree that the 1998 resulution was preferrable? And of the WMD Saddam was supposebly producing in those 5 years, what happened to them?

You are all missing my original point anyway and have just latched on to the last line. No matter what you think of the man, he should not be held responsible for this latest episode.

Nic,

Talk is cheap, and pretty speeches by SecGen's unfortunately don't amount to much. One speech that helped change the course of history was Reagan's Brandenburg Gate speech of 1986. Can you name an equally influential one by any SecGen? And his frequent statements of "deep concern" in the face of barbarism and corruption are risable.

I think it's fair to say that it's the things he *hasn't* done that have earned him the ire of many commentators. He did not lift a finger in Rwanda. He did not sack Dileep Nair. He did nothing to end corruption in the food for oil programme.

If he worked for Halliburton, his head would be on a pike.

At the risk of being a bloghog I'd like to add that the UN is good for a few things. Law of the Sea, ICAO air travel regulations, the humdrum of common standards where necessary.

It is also a handy forum for States to represent their national interests.

It is most definitely not the ideal forum for achieving peace, for promoting economic development, or for getting shit done.

So Clem, you appear to hate the UN. What do you propose as an alternative?

As I said above, a sculpture on the site of the former UN building containing the words "Never Again". Perhaps the sculpture could consist of statues of Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, Kurt Waldheim, Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat in flagrante delicto on top of a mass grave. Nothing could better epitomise what the UN has stood for.

I wonder what Nic was saying when lefties worldwide were pushing to hold Bush and Rumsfeld responsible for Abu Ghraib. And that one proved to be an aberration, not just the "latest episode" (to use Nic's own words)...

Do tell us, what would it take for you to demand holding Kofi accountable? His casual obstructionism regarding any attempts to hold his subordinates accountable (whether it's for UNSCAM or various cases of sexual misbehaviour) apparently doesn't quite suffice, I guess.

Kofi wouldn't happen to have something to hide, now would he? Nah, can't be, he's such an upstanding person and all.

"the humdrum of common standards where necessary."

Yeah right... that's why tv's are different, electricity too. And why you damn people drive on the wrong side of the road! :-)

Alternative to the UN?

United States Marine Corps.

What's the old saying, "The fish rots from the head down"?

Can I preface this by voting a quick welcome to Nic (who I haven't seen around these parts, if he's bobbed up before, but who, on the evidence so far, brings a more thoughtful level of dissent than the usual bilious eruptions from the trolls). Do come back again.

And you all have been much more pleasant to him in disagreement than you customarily are to the likes of that adolescent lot, (which is probably one more reason to like this space in the 'sphere).

The main reason, for mine, to despair of the Kofi guy is his apparent willingness, against the weight of evidence to behave, with a straight face, as if the UN really can deliver on the expectations that many in the international community continue have of it.

If he had any decency he'd be saying, on basis of recent form, that it's been a total failure measured against those expectations, and loudly calling for the sort of organisational reforms that Nic appears willing to absolve him of any responsibility for.

He may not have been personally instrumental in the implementation of the structural inadequacies that make it so flawed as an organisation, but the least he could do is have the decency, in light of the UN's limp-wristed responses to urgent circumstances in Rwanda, East Timor, Iraq, Bosnia, Zimbabwe, Darfur and many others to put his hand up and say loudly "it ain't workin'and its gotta be fixed or I's outa here, godammit.."

While he remains there, gravely intoning about the importance of international unity, but apparently tolerant of these fundemental failures, he and his coterie of nuanced Old European sophisticates and sycophants can't complain that nations committed to ameliorating disasters in failed and failing states sometimes feel moved by a sense of obligation to actually take some form of concrete action; even action outside the Security Council framework.

And the longer he does so the more readily people come to the conclusions that they obviously have that his tenure is more about what's in it for him and kin than about what he can realistically achieve.

I'd be "deeply concerned" too, if I were him.

Alternative to the UN?

United States Marine Corps.

Effective and more likely to bring peace. I like it!

Kofi is an ex-Ghana man from Takoradi and eats Fufu and Light Soup in UN meetings. Beleive me I know, I have been there. His Son Kojo is just another wanabe young African millionaire. I think the name Kojo means he was born on a Monday.

>"His son is an independant individual, the father no longer has control over his son and doesnt actively involve himself in his activities."

Yes, tricky. Still, such considerations didn't detain the legislators too long when it came to insider dealing and 'connected persons'. So it's one rule for running-dog capitalists but something a little more 'nuanced' for scumbag statesmen and their lackeys. Worse, those who reveal what the bastards are up to are to be persecuted, e.g. (to name only one) the decent and honourable Martha Andreasen for revealing the less than worthless EU accounting standards.

A magnificent film out on video called "No Man's Land" gives us a behind the scenes view of the U.N. Although a drama its caricatures of all but the very frontline soldiers in Bosnia(who were presented as attemptimg to do an impossible task)were cruel but obviously close to the mark.(It was a very serious film but also full of dark humour.)U.N. sent up as pompous,having internal language barriers in the field, chronically disorganized,loath to make crucial decisions in the field,underfunded ,undersupplied,officials living in luxury being helicoptered in to pronounce on urgent situations,abandoning people in dire distress when unable to find an immediate solution, doing very little work etc.THE FILM WAS MADE BY A EUROPEAN FILM GROUP-amazing- take a bow. However it is an anti war film in the sense that nobody likes war or wants it if possible to avoid it.Obviously often it is not possible-but this is a great video.Incidentally the Oz has a recent headline U.N. powers "arming Sudan".Amnesty International report names China and Russia as continuously supplying arms to Khartoum.China the largest single investor in Sudan's oil industry.Both permanent members of the Security council. Both .used their vetoes to block economic sanctions. They had supplied arms for 20 years.12 Migs imported from Russia in July.Since the 1990s 40 Chinese fighter jets and dozens of helicopters.An African Union force lacks a mandate to protect civilians.

Bill Clinton wants Kofi's job. And the UN likes people who can bullshit their way through things. They deserve each other.

At the moment, I'm not sure on Kofi's son's misbehavior -- it's not too unusual to receive money from a company after leaving its employ. And even if he is guilty of wrongdoing, that shouldn't reflect on Kofi himself necessarily.

Still, Kofi seems remarkably inept in his role, very short on leadership and very bad at maintaining a cordial relationship with the only country that could add significant muscle to the UN. I'd put him down with no accomplishments, no serious attempts at reform, and behavior that certainly looks dishonest at best.

With respect, Nic, I'm simply not impressed with his accomplishments.

with respect Nic, the whole scandel happened on Kofi's watch. He should get the axe for the momumental level of corruption that's been taking place. Part of leadership is taking the blame as well as the credit for things that happen in your organization.

If the man had any ethics, he'd have and external audit team come in, and run a monetary check of the whole place. Oh wait...how much of that money in kick backs did his son get? never mind

John that was my point exactly. Regardless of what you think of Kofi Annan, you cant crucify him over this. You cant resort to "sins of the father" (or the reverse in this case)

what would it take for you to demand holding Kofi accountable?

Proof.

Cheers lex, glad we can behave like adults. Ive heard bad things about the commenting over here, glad its not all true. Blog's linked if you want to pass through from time to time.
Theres no question that the UN is failing spectacularly in its objectives, but this is not to say its completely useless. I think its people like Kofi Annan that try to do things but are frustrated by the lack of support they are able to get from the UN as it struggles to decide what colour curtins it wants for the Hague. I think his problem is he is overly catious and too worrieed about upsetting people to get many really serious done, but I still believe his heart is in the right place and he has still accomplished some good. I would go so far as to say hes completely inept.

Now, Im big enough to admit Im wrong, but only if events prove that I am. If theres proof hes been doing some dodgy things, and its eventually uncovered, then I will change my position.

Fidens, as I said you are essentially right, but the UN has the potential to be more than what it currently is, but it will need an overhaul. Perhaps Kofi isnt the right man to do this, but I wouldnt accuse him of contributing to the problem.

YOUR ATTENTION .

With due respect, trust and humility, I write you this proposal, which I believe it will be a great interest to you. I found your contact while I was doing a private research on the Internet for a reliable and capable foreign partner that would assist my family and me. That's why I contacted you. I am Kojo Annan the son of Mr. Secretary-General Kofi Annan .

While my father was running the Oil for Food Program, I was given the sum of $120 (ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS) every year by the very kind and respected Cotecna Inspection S.A. company in consideration for my continuing to be the son of the Honorable Secretary General. I broke off relations with this firm in 1999 but they continued to pay me as long as I maintained my status as the son of the Right Honorable Secretary General. I am now in possession of $37.5 (THIRTY-SEVEN BILLION, AND FIVE HUNDRED MILLION U.S DOLLARS) balance not spent which I want to invest abroad especially in your country. This fund was deposited in an AAAA rated Finance and Security Firm in Accra, Republic of Ghana, because none of the most respected banks in Liberia would have accepted the money without raising eyebrows on me.

However recently my father expressed that he was very disappointed and surprised with me for continuing to not work for the Cotecna Inspection S.A. but be paid and, as you may understand I am now in fear; you would not like my father when he is very disappointed and surprised. As a result I am now in hiding in Ballarat, Australia (Please I beseech you reveal this information to no one).

So this is what prompted me to contact you for assistance to bring the funds out from the Finance and Security Firm in Accra for onward transfer to your account in any designated interest of you. I decided to solicit your help. So if you consider this proposal worth doing indicate your interest. We have agreed to give you 25% of the total sum for helping us to move this money out to the country of your choice. And 5% will be mapped out for expenses both of us may incur during this transaction and 70% is for family to be invested in your country. NOTE: That this transaction is 100% risk free and absolutely confidential. Please write back to at this email address. (mluza010@yahoo.co.uk)

Thanks and God bless you.

Koji

Nic,

If Kofi is not up to his neck in oil slush-fund money, then why is he telling U.N. employees not to cooperate with the current U.S. Senate/Paul Volker investigation of the Oil For Palaces program? (And beleive me, the U.S. government has a hell of a lot more resources to conduct investigations than the U.N. does.) Doesn't sound like a man with clean hands trying to get to the bottom of this scam.

Move the UN HQ to Brussels, international home of peace, light and understanding.

Imagine the shot in the arm that real estate would give to NYC at today's prices!

So Kofi's 1998 "deal" gave Saddam an extra 5 years of paving over Shiites and tossing dissidents into shredders and that is supposed to be a point in his favor?

Saying Kofi was "too passive" about preventing the Rwandan genocide is like saying Stalin was a bit proactive when it came to layoffs. This guy was in charge of UN peacekeeping and he didn't lift a finger or utter a word to prevent a million people getting matcheted to death. After Rwanda he should have been tossed out on the street at the least, not promoted to the top slot.

Even assuming the guy isn't on the take, or abetting those on the take, he is incompetent and apologist for the matchete wielders of the world. The fact is that Kofi Annan's main goal is to avoid confrontation and conflict, even when confrontation and conflict is the lesser of the two evils.

Nic White,

I think you make a good argument about the unfairness of
blaming the father (Kofi Annan) for the misdeeds of his
son (Kojo Annan) except for a crucial point. That is why was
Kofi Annan's son involved in the UN's oil-for-food program
in the first place?

As soon as we know that Kojo Annan was on the UN's payroll
then in my eyes the whole situation stinks. It's implausible
that the son of Annan would have had anything to do with the
UN or this specific program except for his father. Further
when we consider the amount of money the UN program was
responsible for assuring went to the right people (how
much is Saddam Hussein alone alleged to have stolen from the
oil for food and medicine program? 21 billion) and compare
that to the UN's annual budget -- $2.9 billion proposed for
this next year -- then I think it's clear that the Iraq
oil-for-food program presented by far the biggest opportunity
for graft and theft within the UN.

And somehow Kofi Annan's family ends up involved.

Not a coincidence I think.

Welcome aboard, Nic. We trolls need someone to straighten us out once in a while, lo doth Andrea Harris try. It's good to have someone put extra thought into their posts, especially after reading thousands of words on the fool things we did as kids (see yesterday).

You ask for an alternative to the UN. How's this? A loose consortium of like-thinking nations responding as needed to dire world events without interference from nations whose agendas (see France) benefit from those events (see Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia).

This organization would have a rotating leadership that functions based on a clearly understood set of rules that are based on well-established (see Rwanda, above) humanitarian need. There would be no plodding bureacracy, no back-stabbing, no corruption. There would be no institutional inertia that results in no results other than to keep office hacks in jobs.

The member countries would have established democratic values and no willingness to wear out their welcome. No leftist buffoons like Olde Europe need apply.

How's that sound?

"For in that time, the sins of the sons shall be visited upon the fathers, yea verily, for they did not know thir holes from an ass upon the ground..."
-- The Book of Wise Acre

Nic - Kofi should get the sack and a prosecutorial proctology exam for the sole and sufficient reason that he was Secretary General when the UN facilitated Saddam's continued rule and theft over $23 billion.

The fact that his kid had his hand in the till just adds a little spice. The fact that daddy presided over all this indicates criminal incompetence at a minimum, and provides a prima facie case for investigating him as a co-conspirator.

I mean, do you really want to argue that the head of the UN should be held to a lower standard that a mere businessman, like, say, Ken Lay at Enron?

Nic: "I remember back in 1998 there was a serious possiblity that there would be a second Gulf War as Saddam was refusing to allow weapons inspectors access. I can remember everyone being extremely worried about the situation. Kofi Annan was the one who solved this situation."

That's about an ignorant a statement I have ever heard if you look where things are today.

"...., you appear to hate the UN. What do you propose as an alternative?"

I just signed a petition for an alternate proposal: The USA backs out and deports the whole lot of them.

And furthermore: You are a fool to let Kofi off the hook for what his son did. Think for a minute what would happen if Kofi was the CEO of a company who arranged a deal in which his son received large sums of money. Even if Kofi didn't know...he should have and he's responsible. The UN stockholders are pissed and have the right to be.

Nic...come clean...you're Kojo's secret lover.

"Move the UN HQ to Brussels, international home of peace, light and understanding. Imagine the shot in the arm that real estate would give to NYC at today's prices!"

FWIW, I think LGF got into this question at length a couple of years ago on a long thread, as to who actually has title to the land and the building in NYC. Not sure it was ever resolved --the land was evidently donated by the Rockefellers, not sure who has "title" now, can't remember how the building complex was funded.

I gather (not 100% sure) that FDR offered to put the UN in the US only after the Swiss adamantly refused to let it be housed in the old league of Nations complex (Geneva, right?) If so, it's too bad we didn't examine the Swiss experience with the League more closely at the time. I suppose FDR's death and Eleanor's total dedication to the UN cause made any dissent about this by Republicans at the time political suicide. This would be an interesting subject for further investigation.

My personal wish would be for us (the US) to "buy them out" with a few billion, say double the current value of the real estate. They could use the money to finance a move to Europe (as well as for lots of expensive dining out which would enhance the local European economy).

However, I imagine the Belgians wouldn't want the additional burden of the UN in Brussels (as well as the EU) as there would be no place left for the natives to park (unless the Belgians added hundreds of tow trucks, in 24 hour operation, to their police automobile fleet).

But I doubt if Chirac could resist the temptation to enhance "la gloire francaise" by accepting them in France, particularly if the offer could be made nationally (and personally) profitable.

Paris would be a good choice, but Versailles would be perfect --it already exists, and as a monument to overweening ego. The unfortunate association with a failed peace treaty could be easily overlooked -- after all, the UN has shown itself to be superb at overlooking things.

I don't think Vaclav Havel has a chance to become UN Secretary General, even if he wanted the position in that corrupted institution. I sincerely believe there is no saving the UN, and the real democracies in the world would be far better served by concentrating their attention and funds elsewhere.

Rebecca is right. Spending any more time and money on the UN is like doing CPR on Arafat's bloated corpse. US out of UN Now! Chant it with me. Can you imagine the editorials in Le Monde if we withdrew?

I got here late in the thread, but I do want to extend a thank you to Nic White for politely disagreeing. And offering good points. That is not trollish behavior.

But, Nic, please note, that Kofi is a major world leader. His son was involved with a major financial scandal on a program mandated by the organization that Kofi runs. Kofi can and should be held accountable as the man in charge. Not a criminal. Not for that, anyhow.

The UN is a corrupt organization, and I think it is going the way of the League of Nations. I just wish it would die quietly.

Oh, and a side note....on this forum, the Nobel Peace Prize isn't taken seriously. Not after it was awarded to a moonbat, a senile dotard, and a bloody handed terrorist in the past 10 years. Mr. Nobel must be spinning in his grave.

Nic White: full respect to your point of view, but by way of explanation for some of the anti-UN venom you find in forums (ok, fora) like this, spare a thought for those of us who had to endure years of lectures about the moral sanctity of the UN as the polar antithesis of American depravity. The UN is church for the churchless: how many times did I have to hear about the need for the UN's "blessing" on this or that foreign policy?

I've read the posts with interest.

No one at the UN ever took a fall over the bombing of the insecure UN compound in which Serio De Vella died (a good UN person in my opinion) who was death marked by Al Queda (East Timor). It was whitewashed.

Kofi Annan said the invasion by the coaliton of the willing in his opinion was illegal. But he makes no comment on the illegality of the oil for Palaces including his own son, he makes no comment except the most generic bland statement on genocide. Mr Annans best assessment is incompetent in my opinion. The UN's broke it's either fixed or replaced by an organisation that can hold it's own members up to basic human rights standards, such standards being the core entry requirement.

Nic-i'm not sure anyone here would seriously propose blaming Kofi directly for what his son has done, especially as the son is an adult of good health and clear mind.

what I suspect many here find strange--at least i do--is that this oil-for-food tango has been going on for some time. A lot of ink has been spilled, especially over his son. And Kofi just finds out now that he was on the payroll now? something is not correct here.

put it this way--if you knew your dad was in hot water over his company's dealings with a rival, and you had drawn a salary from that rival--and had for many months after he got into hot water-- wouldnt you at least mention it your old man? if not, why not?

One thing that everyone seems to be missing is that the UN isn't structured like a company or a national government. Annan doesn't have the powers or even the role of someone like a CEO or President/PM.

He has no decision making making power.

The people who make decisions at the UN (and this includes whether or not to take action in situations like Rwanda) are the heads of respective national governments, and in particular the 5 permanent members of the security council - they generally make up their mind on an issue before presenting anything to any other members eg: Bush calls Blair, Blair calls Shirak (sp?) who calls Putin who calls Hu who calls Bush. The decision is made, their respective ambassadors are informed, the other members of the security council are informed, the decision is formalised, Kofi is told, he tries to get people to fund it and provide soldiers.

An excellent book on the UN is called: We Did Nothing - why the truth doesn't always come out when the UN goes in", available here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141012900/202-5548474-2916654

I'll just say it again, the role of the Secretary General is not to make any decisions. That is the role of heads of states of all the member countries, and the President of the US gets their way more often than anyone else.
The role of the Secretary General is to encourage Members to come to AN agreement (not any particular agreement, just agreement) and to impliment that decision once it has been made.

Therefore. The secretary general should not be held accountable for the quality of any decisions since they have no influence on that decision.

NB: I haven't commented on any corruption, oil for food stuff or whatever.

"The UN's broke it's either fixed or replaced by an organisation that can hold it's own members up to basic human rights standards, such standards being the core entry requirement."

- I agree.

One thing that everyone seems to be missing is that the UN isn't structured like a company or a national government. Annan doesn't have the powers or even the role of someone like a CEO or President/PM.

He has no decision making making power.

The people who make decisions at the UN (and this includes whether or not to take action in situations like Rwanda) are the heads of respective national governments, and in particular the 5 permanent members of the security council - they generally make up their mind on an issue before presenting anything to any other members eg: Bush calls Blair, Blair calls Shirak (sp?) who calls Putin who calls Hu who calls Bush. The decision is made, their respective ambassadors are informed, the other members of the security council are informed, the decision is formalised, Kofi is told, he tries to get people to fund it and provide soldiers.

An excellent book on the UN is called: We Did Nothing - why the truth doesn't always come out when the UN goes in", available here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141012900/202-5548474-2916654

I'll just say it again, the role of the Secretary General is not to make any decisions. That is the role of heads of states of all the member countries, and the President of the US gets their way more often than anyone else.
The role of the Secretary General is to encourage Members to come to AN agreement (not any particular agreement, just agreement) and to impliment that decision once it has been made.

Therefore. The secretary general should not be held accountable for the quality of any decisions since they have no influence on that decision.

NB: I haven't commented on any corruption, oil for food stuff or whatever.

"The UN's broke it's either fixed or replaced by an organisation that can hold it's own members up to basic human rights standards, such standards being the core entry requirement."

- I agree.

Dominic, thats what I've been saying all along. Kofi has very little decision making power, all he can do is keep kicking the member countries to make a decision and "express concern" over bad events. The point of him expressing concern is that its supposed to carry some weight, the idea is if the UN is against you, you should back off. Unfortunately this isnt the case and Kofi can express concern all he wants but no one will care. This is why the UN is such a failure, that and the big member nations throwing their veto around.

It needs to be fixed, but you cant be as arrogant to say that the USA should just leave and do things its own way, the UN is supposed to be a moderating factor on international policy and the closest thing to a "world government". It has failed in this and imo the world needs an organization like this, so something has to be done to the UN to fix it.

Gary that sounds like what the UN was supposed to be like, but corruption, abuse of the veto power, etc have made it the mess it is today. And enough with the knee jerk anti-France rubbish, the whole world does not have to be right wing.

How did Kojo come to be on the payroll? I dont know, you tell me. But so far there is no proof that either of the Annans have done anything wrong. Innocent until proven guilty.

The role of the Secretary General is to encourage Members to come to AN agreement (not any particular agreement, just agreement) and to impliment that decision once it has been made.

The problem is that he has proven stunningly incompetent at filling even that limited job description.

The secretary general should not be held accountable for the quality of any decisions since they have no influence on that decision.

That does lead to an obvious question though, namely why in the name of all that's holy does anybody pay any attention to what Kofi has to say? If he's really just a mere figurehead who not just doesn't do anything to deserve his salary but actually can't do much of anything, surely his position could be eliminated with no ill effects? I'm up for that.

Dominic and Nick White,

Although it's certainly true that Kofi Annan lacks the
authority to send U.N. troops into a country on his own
that hardly means he's a figurehead. Or at least I think
it's a odd twist on the definition of 'power' to insist
that only a person who can do so has it.

In particular Kofi Annan is the head of the organization
that ran the Oil-for-Food program -- the subject at hand.

Or if I'm mistaken perhaps one of you would explain
in more detail just how it is that Kofi Annan has no
authority over the employees and agencies of the U.N.

There's only one question you have to ask yourself in this matter: would Cotechna have ever employed Kojo as a consultant if he wasn't Kofi's son? Answer: no. They obviously thought they could use him to get some advantage.

>I remember back in 1998 there was a serious possiblity that there would be a second Gulf War as Saddam was refusing to allow weapons inspectors access. I can remember everyone being extremely worried about the situation. Kofi Annan was the one who solved this situation.

I'm sorry, but he did not solve the situation. George Bush did, in 2003. Delaying a war a few years is not an accomplishment.

He prevented the war in 98. That was solving the situation IMO.

He prevented the war in 98. That was solving the situation IMO.

No it's not. It's ignoring the problem.

He prevented the war in 98. That was solving the situation IMO.

Since when did ignoring the symptoms beget a cure, Nic?

I'm curious about something that popped up earlier in the conversation, that Kofi Annan has little actual power to move the UN to action (or to cease action).

If that's the case, why does Mr. Annan deserve credit for his actions in '98, delaying the second Gulf War?

And if the elected Secretary-General of the UN is little more than a figurehead, what use is the position, or membership in said organization?

After the debacle of WW2 proved the spectacular uselessness of the League of Nations, it was scrapped wholesale. The world had changed. This war is going to have similarly far-reaching impact. It seems to me only reasonable to likewise scrap the current UN.

If you're being generous in the historical tally, you can say it helped prevent the Cold War from going Full-Tilt Boogie; but you'd also have to concede that it not only did nothing against terrorism, but in word and deed aided and abetted terrorist causes.

Far from condemning (or even ignoring) state-sponsors of terrorism such as Libya, Syria, and the Sudan, the UN rewards them with spots on UN Committees, and their heads of state are welcomed openly. (The US Gov't. under Clinton, endorsing Arafat as a head of state on par with duly-elected leaders, similarly did [alas!] help enable the launch of the current Intifada.)

The UN also nearly mismanaged Palestinian settlements into the ground, as a dry-run for the Food-for-Oil fiasco.

Really, we're much the better off without it at this point. It's time to strip it down and start over.

Nic, I fully agree that the unilateralist approach of Bush is massively problematic and the role of the UN in facilitating some sort of international society is essential (I assueme you are talking along this line here: "but you cant be as arrogant to say that the USA should just leave and do things its own way") In general, I think we have quite similar positions on this issue.

"why... does anybody pay any attention to... Kofi...? If he's really just a mere figurehead... surely his position could be eliminated with no ill effects?"
The role of SG has significant moral authority. Its just like the opinion of people at Office of National Assessments (in Aus) are given value because of their recognised expertese, the opinion of the SG is given authority because of their recognised commitment to humanity.
Secondly, I never said the SG is a figurehead and nore do I believe so. If there was no SG the Members at the UN would likely never agree on anything. And when they did agree to take action say, it would be unlikely that anyone would actually commit any troups or money to make sure that action happened if it weren't for the SG.

You could say that the SG has administrative control over the UN, but policy is left up to the Members. This is how the Members want it to be. It wasn't "The UN" which made this decision, it was the governments of the countries which founded it. Therefore, if you disagree with policy decisions of the UN, criticise the governments which made those decisions. If you disagree with other issues, then criticise the staff at the UN (this would be the case in any corruption issues - my main point was that most of the people here were simply UN bashing for whatever personal agenda, eg: "You would need a whole team of construction workers (or failing that, five muslim males) to demolish the UN building, numerous accountants to locate the misappropriated funds, a squadron of police to arrest the staff, a massive legal team to prosecute them for corruption and being accessories to terrorism & genocide, and an artist to construct a sculpture on the site prominently featuring the words "Never Again".)

I'd like to add that I was dissapointed that the panel report on reviewing the UN didn't recomend removing the veto from the security council. It doesn't look like the UN will be fixed any time soon.
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites.htm

He prevented the war in 98. That was solving the situation IMO.

No it's not. It's ignoring the problem.

You're talking past one another. For Nic (and Kofi's UN), apparently the "situation" was that a war might take place, and that got solved handily. For most other people posting here, the "situation" was that a megalomaniac dictator was in charge of Iraq. It's perfectly fine to have different priorities, you know...what do you mean there were Iraqis who were suffering?

Oh, I agree PW. I think the real goal of France, Germany and others wasn't so much a resolution of the Iraqi situation, but rather finding a way to limit US power.

I think the real goal of France, Germany and others wasn't so much a resolution of the Iraqi situation, but rather finding a way to limit US power.

"Kofi Annan: Obstructing the U.S. since 1998!" Well, if that's the one thing you're good at, I guess you'll run with it...a real success story, our Kofi, no doubt about that. Thanks to Nic for enlightening me on the point of Kofi's successes, I truly had no idea.

(for the impaired, the sarcasm tag goes here)

If Kofi is smart then his son must be a freakin' genius. Imagine getting a big time job managing billions when only 22? He must have done it well because he was paid $30,000US a year not to compete with his former employer. No stink here.

Well, the USA did invade Iraq in order to increase its power.

Actually Tim if you are reading this you might want to write something on that article, I dont know why no one has seen it yet.

Now PW, dont go thinking Im anti-war. I was pro war in Iraq, I just think the way it was carried out and the post war reconstruction was inept at best. In 1998 the objective of the UN and Kofi was to prevent a second Gulf War, this was achieved, no matter how much you might disagree now, so therefore mission was sucessful.

Wait a minute Nic. I thought you were OK, but now it was the US increasing its power. I am waiting for it is all about the OOOOIIIILLLLLLLLL!!!!

The US had no need to go to war to increase its power. There is no nation - or for that matter a group of nations - that could stop the US militarily from doing anything the US decided it wanted to do. The only country that can militarily stop the US is the US.

The invasion certainly impresses upon the cesspool that is the middle east that the US is deciding to utilize its power. That creates a grudging respect, because the middle east respects power above all else. That is why Libya decided to stop its nuclear program and why we are beginning to hear stirrings about Syria and Israel talking peace.

George Bush has done more to offer a chance of real peace in the region in 4 years than every other US president combined has done since Israel was founded after WWII. And the terrible thing to think about - he wouldn't have done much more different than his predecessors had if 9/11 hadn't occurred. He would have isolated Arafat probably, but not much else.

Kofi Annon has does nothing but allow many more people die while he excused the status quo. Oh, and enrich his family's pockets.

Oops - last paragraph should have been "has done nothing...." Pay more attention to the preview next time!

Jem I have to disagree. First, read the article I linked to. If the information in it is indeed true, then the USA really DID invade Iraq to increase its power. If not, then Im back where I was before. I mean Id still support it because it got rid of Saddam, but that doesnt mean I have to be happy about the plans, the motivations or the concequences. If this article's information is accurate, then I am appaled and disgusted at the Bush administration for this act of Imperialism.

Im not liking your US Imperialism undertones either.

"The invasion certainly impresses upon the cesspool that is the middle east that the US is deciding to utilize its power. That creates a grudging respect, because the middle east respects power above all else."

Did you seriously just say that? Invading another country to show the middle east you are utilising your power is just not cool and unjustifiable. You seem to be saying that the middle east is a bunch of inferior individuals that require something like an invasion to know their place. Thats laughable.

As for the USA being an unstoppable military force, youre joking right? Firstly there are a number of countries that could repel an assault, and last time I checked the USA were having some problems in paltry little Iraq. Secondly just because you can does NOT mean you should. The USA is not a world police unit or an empire that has the right to do whatever it feels like at everyone else's expense. There are no words to describe how stupid that viewpoint is.

Bush has done nothing to create peace in the region, in fact he has inflamed it with attacks on Iraq, imperialism, nose poking and "axis of evil" comments. We are probably even further from peace than ever.

And no, its not about the oil. I rolled my eyes at that idea from day one.

Chamberlain gets very little credit for preventing World War II; Annan deserves none for preventing the second Gulf War.

Well I am glad about the oil at least. If you seriously doubt my comment on the middle east and its opinion of power then you need to do a little reading before you comment again. You are being more than just a little naive. That is all the middle east generally respects. And look hard at what was said. I didn't say we invaded to increase the perception of our willingness to use power, I said it was a result of it. Not the reason for it, there is a difference. I believe I stated we never would have gone in if 9/11 never happened. That doesn't strike me as an imperialistic undertone. This country has a serious isolationist bent, with occasional periods of disgust so great we act, but not indefinitely.

I disagree with your comment on possilities for peace regading Bush's efforts so much it is useless to argue. The perception being made by mid east states right now is that the US has decided to throw its weight around, we had better think prety seriously about our next steps lest we get in the target hairs next. That change in attitude is the basis for potential peace opportunites - as I noted in my previous post. I am guessing that the presence of open combat and the potential for more overrides in your mind what is going on underneath all the headlines. Peace is not the absence of war - peace is the absence of terror and oppression and violence against your own citizens and your neighbors. Peace defined as the absence of violence can be met by laying down before the sword and giving up your god given rights of freedom. That is not a peace I am interested in. If you do not believe that, then we will obviously never agree, because there is nothing you can say or show that will convince me that your apparent definition of peace actually is. I didn't dive a plane into buildings.

I only was able to browse the article and have to run. I will look in more detail and comment more fully later - but right now I don't buy its version of fact nor its analysis of same.

Nic, I've read the article and your interpretation is frankly a little bizarre. Any successful step in a successful war must be carried out to "increase the power" of the side making the move. This is like claiming the Allies invaded France to "increase their power."

When the allies invaded France it was held by the Germans. Iraq was not held by the Saudis. You cannot justify the invasion of a completely unconnected country just for strategic advantage. Life is not a game of Risk.

And Jem you still sound like you think it is ok for the USA to play world cop. No country should have the right to do that.

Well Nic I'm sure we all want to hear more of your ideas on how the world should be run but it's time to close old comment threads now so I guess you will just have to wait until this subject comes up somewhere else.