Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 21st, 2004, 09:50 PM        The UN Oil-for-Food scandal
I don't think this has been discussed here as of yet, and something about it has been bugging me lately.

For me, this is the bottom line-- those who are cooking up this so-called scandal in order to smear Kofi Annan and tear down the UN are the very same people who wish for the ultimate demise of that institution. They hate the fact that we are a part of it, they are paranoid, and they resent the fact that our tax dollars go towards financing the "one world government."

In my opinion, this is merely a window of opportunity for those who pushed for this war to get retribution and good ol' fashion revenge. If we truly believed in maintaining the integrity of the UN, why did we just recently give Annan a vote of confidence in the UN? Why didn't our administration follow the lead set by Minnesota's #1 jackass, Sen. Norm Coleman, and call for Annan's resignation....? If this is truly the "biggest world scandal ever," as the latest GOP talking points have declared it to be, why jump to support Annan? Why not wait for the findings by Volcker?

Here are some of the facts:

- NO, I repeat, ZERO American dollars were stolen, laundered, or whatever, in this scandal.

- The Oil-for-Food programme was set up, maintained, and routinely monitored by the Security Council. The U.S. sat on the commission that ran the program. Every contract, every transaction, went right by our eyes.

- Iraq acquired more illicit funding through non-OFF programme transactions with Turkey and Jordan. Both of these nations are our allies, and we're hearing far less noise over this scandal.

I'm not trying to say that the UN doesn't have problems, nor do I think this matter should be overlooked. But I also think that this matter has been terribly exaggerated by those who simply despise the idea of the UN, and who would rather see us withdraw from the world and resort to faux coalitions and unilateral jingoism.

I think Kofi Annan is one of the finest, and most proactive secretary generals the UN has ever had. If his son is guilty of a crime, then prosecute him. If Kofi is guilty of a crime, go after him, too. But I think we should wait and see the results of the Volcker investigation, rather than jumping at this as an opportunity to tear down the UN.

Any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Dec 22nd, 2004, 03:08 PM       
Ya, there is a lot of politics involved and I'm sure its going to be exposed by opponents of the UN.

People who oppose someone or something on a political stance attack it for any perceived scandal or imporper action. Now, lets get rid of the soap box shall we? Like it hasn't been done by anyone with a politcal opnion.

Honestly, I think Annon has to step down. Even if its son and not him, its a major blow to credability. You can't get mad at Bush because some of Cheney's old friends at Haliburton get rich in Iraq, and then excuse Annon because his it was his son and not him directly that manipulating this whole thing.

There is nothing I'd love more than to see people get rid of all this rediculous moral postuering when discussing things like this.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 22nd, 2004, 05:02 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
Ya, there is a lot of politics involved and I'm sure its going to be exposed by opponents of the UN.

People who oppose someone or something on a political stance attack it for any perceived scandal or imporper action.
You perhaps should've stopped yourself here.....


Quote:
Honestly, I think Annon has to step down. Even if its son and not him, its a major blow to credability. You can't get mad at Bush because some of Cheney's old friends at Haliburton get rich in Iraq, and then excuse Annon because his it was his son and not him directly that manipulating this whole thing.
1. NOTHING has been proven yet, in terms of indicting Annan for anything. Doesn't asking the man to step down, prior to the findings of the investigation, seem sort of ass-backward????

2. Dick Cheney is STILL our Vice President. NO investigations have been brought against him, despite the fact that we STILL don't know exactly what went down between him and the interests from the energy biz in the White House. Haliburton still gets the contracts, and nobody has raised an eyebrow, so your point is moot. Do you think VP Cheney should step down? What about Sec. Rumsfeld? I can think of some pretty big blunders and exaggerations put forward by this administration *cough*WMD!*cough* No heads rolled, and no big jobs were loss (with of course the exception of George Tenet, but Mr. "slam dunk" set himself up for that one).

3. You avoided all of the important aspects here: Jordan and Turkey, American approval of OFF contracts, turning a blind eye, etc. Yet you seem pretty damn sure that Kofi Annan did something weally weally bad, and he should probably step down. Why doesn't this administration agree with you? What's their angle....?

Quote:
There is nothing I'd love more than to see people get rid of all this rediculous moral postuering when discussing things like this.
Oh, shove it. Be careful on that high horse of yours.....

If defending a man with a terribly difficult (and historically unpopular) job who is becoming the victim of a witch hunt (my words, not his) is "posturing," then allow me to posture away.....

Those who supported this war, particularly the GOP in Congress and the White House, want pay back. They were slapped in the face by this body and this man in their build up to war, and now they want to grab hold of the proberbial reigns. Why give him a vote of confidence? Could it be at al likely that maybe we're hoping this will mute him on the international field, making him more maliable...? Like you said, this is an issue of "credibility," and if Annan is even perceived to be lacking in such, it will make him less brazen and more agreeable to our agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 17th, 2005, 12:38 AM       
I don't know if anybody caught Fox News' "special report" on the UN Oil-for-food scandal....? If you did, you simply missed one of the most shameful examples of hack-job, pseudo-journalism that I've ever seen.

Rather than getting into it myself, you might want to read the critique put out by Media Matters for America. Granted, they are clearly a partisan group, but they tend to do a very good job of backing up their arguments with references and documents.

To sum it up, Fox News pretty much blames Kofi Annan for allowing the killings in Rwanda, for allowing Iraq to build up their stockpiles of WMDs, for starving the people of Iraq, and for aiding in Saddam's plot to flood the American perfume market with biological poisons.

No joke. Check it out.

EDIT: Better yet, call Fox News at 1-888-369-4762, and tell them to stop attempting this journalism stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2005, 05:04 AM       
Hold on.

Corruption has followed the UN in every word crisis situation they've had a major presence. They're ineffectual, whichI realize doesn't exactly equal guilt, but it does fall right in line with the accusations thrown at them. In other words, look at their actions, and what they've accomplished, and it's not too shocking to hear the negative stories surrounding the organization wherever they've been. It's really pathetic to hear people use the UN (or worse, when they talk abotu the need for an "impartial International body" as if the UN doesn't exist, as if putting them in the parts of the Middle East will stop injustice.

Darfur: they were there, they allowed it to build to the level it has. Gaza: They've been anything but impartial, aligning themselves with extremists who hurt the communities they claim to protect. Bosnia: they acted like gangsters, and added to the mess. Iraq: the money trail doesn't add up, and we know the food didn't go where it needed to, yet they continued the program.

How is that record worth defending?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Dole Dole is offline
Mocker
Dole's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brighton & Motherfucking Hove
Dole is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2005, 05:47 AM       
Any evidence for all of that?
__________________
I don't get it. I mean, why did they fuck with the formula? Where are the car songs? There's only one song about surfing and it's a downer!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2005, 10:07 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
Darfur: they were there, they allowed it to build to the level it has.
They allowed it? You just went on a diatribe about how the UN is ineffectual, yet you somehow seem to think that they could've prevented the "build up." What could they have done? Furthermore, what, if any, kind of military action could they take without the S.C. (i.e. the U.S.) signing on to it....?

Quote:
Gaza: They've been anything but impartial, aligning themselves with extremists who hurt the communities they claim to protect.
Such as?

Quote:
Bosnia: they acted like gangsters, and added to the mess.
They acted like "gangsters"? Look, you can be as pretentious and superior as you like, it's sort of cute, but don't just make pointless rants. How did they act like gangsters? Did they walk around in their baby blue outfits, role up in their baby blue vehicles, and hustle money out of peasants? What the hell are you talking about?

Quote:
Iraq: the money trail doesn't add up, and we know the food didn't go where it needed to, yet they continued the program.
Actually, we know that the program, despite being abused, did in fact help a lot of people. That's according to the UN, as well as the CBO.

The money trail not adding up is correct. A far larger sum of oil money was exchanged outside of the OFF program, yet nobody on the Right talks about it, because a) it doesn't serve their agenda against Annan, and b) it involves allies of the U.S. such as Turkey and Jordan.

The U.S. sat on the committee that approved/denied the OFF contracts. You're right, the UN has been ineffectual on many levels, but the matters of diplomacy are going to be hard for a body that has no real enforcement capabilities, and is also comprised of various nations with various agendas (i.e. Syria sitting on the human rights committee).



Quote:
How is that record worth defending?
I dunno, you make such a scathing indictment.

The UN, as well as its many sister and partner programs, have done a LOT of good works around the world. Do they have problems in need of reform? Certainly, but that wasn't entirely the point of this thread. I don't believe chasing out Kofi Annan is one of those needed reforms.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2005, 07:53 PM       
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.

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!

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. The corruption scandals are rampant (check the news today?) and it's only the beginning. 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).
Reply With Quote
  #9  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2005, 09:19 PM       
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.).

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Feb 20th, 2005, 08:28 AM       
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? 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?

Wel I think it buries the bigger picture - Koffi Annan's ethics are in question, he has a no confidence vote, and while there are many reasons he should resign, I personally think Darfur is the least debatable.

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.

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? It started with 800,000 deaths in a mere 100 days. Nearly 3 million more were left homeless. The Security Council cut the 2000 troop presence down to 270 instead.

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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 23rd, 2005, 09:18 PM       
Quote:
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"."


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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?).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Feb 24th, 2005, 06:24 AM       
First of all, Kofi Annan was the head of UN peacekeeping operations as far back 1994.

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? 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.

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.

Annan did have the ability to do more in Rwanda, and he's apologized for it. Their man on the ground thought it was preventable and points the finger at Annan. The UN itself is not powerless. It took action with Korea, Iraq/Kuwait in the past, 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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 24th, 2005, 07:56 PM       
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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....?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!??


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Feb 24th, 2005, 09:39 PM       
Explain why Annan shouldn't be acountable the same way a corporate President or even corporate PR face should?

He was involved in every instance I mentioned. His track record isn't pristine, and some of the worst attrocities of the Century went down under his watch. End of story.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Dole Dole is offline
Mocker
Dole's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brighton & Motherfucking Hove
Dole is probably a spambot
Old Feb 25th, 2005, 06:31 AM       
weirdo.....annan and the BBC hellbent on destroying all the goodness in the world, yes?
__________________
I don't get it. I mean, why did they fuck with the formula? Where are the car songs? There's only one song about surfing and it's a downer!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Feb 26th, 2005, 03:52 AM       
Oh look, it's the fan boy. Gush about your BBC fetish in a different thread. I wouldn't defend any major news source in this day and age, but go for it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Dole Dole is offline
Mocker
Dole's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brighton & Motherfucking Hove
Dole is probably a spambot
Old Feb 26th, 2005, 04:59 AM       
you're a very angry young man.
__________________
I don't get it. I mean, why did they fuck with the formula? Where are the car songs? There's only one song about surfing and it's a downer!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 8th, 2005, 12:07 PM       
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.a...55E954,00.html

Annan cleared of corruption (Kevin: "but....")
Evelyn Leopold in New York
09sep05

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, his deputy and the Security Council have all been blamed for mismanaging Iraq's oil-for-food program that allowed Saddam Hussein to rake in more than $US10 billion.


However, an independent year-long probe into the $US64 billion humanitarian program found no corruption by Mr Annan.

It did, though, castigate him and other top UN officials for tolerating corruption.

Investigators also faulted the 15-member Security Council for turning a blind eye to oil smuggling and other illicit earnings outside of the program, a violation of UN trade sanctions.

The now-defunct operation allowed Saddam to sell oil to buy food and medicine.

However, it became a "a compact with the devil and a devil had means for manipulating the program to his ends", inquiry chairman and former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker said.

Mr Annan himself addressed the Security Council, saying: "The report is critical of me personally and I accept its criticism."

He said the findings were "deeply embarrassing to us all", but that he had no intention of resigning.

At a news conference, Mr Volcker said his independent inquiry committee "found no corruption by the Secretary-General". But he said Mr Annan's "behaviour has not been exonerated by any stretch of the imagination".

The report called for sweeping reforms, a week before world leaders gather for a UN summit to consider a host of Mr Annan's proposals, including management and financial controls. But many of the initiatives are deadlocked because of sharp divisions among the 191 countries.

The oil-for-food program, which began late in 1996 and ended in 2003, was aimed at easing the impact of the sanctions, imposed in 1990 after Baghdad's troops invaded Kuwait and achieved considerable success in feeding Iraqis. But illicit oil sale surcharges, kickbacks and smuggling schemes "provided Saddam Hussein and his regime with access to hard currency outside of the control" of the program, said the report which ran to more than 1000 pages in five volumes. The panel said there had been a lack of supervision of the program. It was headed by Cypriot Benon Sevan, who was accused earlier of fraud, by Mr Annan and by his deputy, Louise Frechette.

"No one seemed in command," Mr Volcker said.

Iraq, the report said, set aside $US15 million in 1995 to bribe former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who set up the program before he left office in 1996. The intermediaries, being prosecuted by US federal authorities, were said to be Iraqi-American businessman Samir Vincent and Tongson Park, a South Korean lobbyist and centre of a bribery scandal in Washington in the 1970s. At one point, Vincent passed some $US60,000 in cash to Park in a shopping bag, the report said. But it said there was no evidence Mr Boutros-Ghali, a friend of Park, had received money. The report detailed the extent to which Kojo Annan, the 31-year old son of the Secretary-General by his first wife, lobbied at the UN for a lucrative contract for the Swiss firm Cotecna, which inspected goods coming into Iraq.

Among other actions, Kojo was said to have made a string of phone calls to a UN procurement official and his father's personal assistant at key moments in the Cotecna bidding process. Both were friends of the family. But the inquiry said it did not have "reasonably sufficient evidence" the Secretary-General knew about his son's actions.

While investigating Kojo's role, it stumbled across evidence of his purchase of a Mercedes-Benz, which he shipped to Ghana without paying duty using his father's diplomatic immunity.

Reuters
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Sep 8th, 2005, 12:52 PM       
Conveniantly worded article. Kofi's staff weren't cleared, and so really it's up to you how accountable you want to hold him. It gets into the same territory as the arguments over how responsible Bush is for the cracked out Homeland Security putz. Nobody likes acountability anymore. "Tolerating corruption" strikes me as...well.... morally corrupt in it's own right. It's especially unfitting for the UN, which attempts to play a roll as moral police. The UN continues questionable behavior... like financing anti-Israel bumper stickers.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 8th, 2005, 03:09 PM       
You're like a clock!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 13th, 2005, 04:26 PM       
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/...s/edsevan.php#

Oil-for-food: Far from a failure
Benon V. Sevan International Herald Tribune

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005


NEW YORK After nearly a year and a half and more than $35 million spent, the Independent Inquiry Committee Into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program (IIC), led by the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, has faulted the management of the program, which I ran for six years. It is easy to apply formal management and audit criteria after the fact to a massive multibillion-dollar humanitarian program, but as the recent crisis in New Orleans shows, what is critical when people are dying is to bring food and medicine to affected populations as quickly as possible. This we accomplished. There are many thousands of people alive today because of the oil-for-food plan.

There is a misconception, reinforced by the familiar echo chamber of the Murdoch press, The Wall Street Journal, the UN bashers in the U.S. Congress, and neocon think tanks, that the program was a failure of epic proportions, riddled with corruption and pliant to Saddam Hussein's every manipulation. The reality is that the oil-for-food program was highly successful in its fundamental mission of addressing the acute humanitarian crisis caused by sanctions imposed on Iraq, in channeling all but a very small percentage of Iraqi oil revenues into food, medicine, and other approved humanitarian supplies, and in helping to maintain international support for sanctions, which in turn prevented Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction during the course of the program.

Volcker's 'public' and other political constituencies are nevertheless demanding heads on a platter, and the latest IIC report, sadly, appears to capitulate to that pressure by unfairly targeting the Secretariat, including the Office of the Iraq Program (OIP) and me, for problems that were essentially inherent in the design of the program and in the inevitable reality of politics among member states.

The program was created by a series of Security Council resolutions that carefully defined - and limited - the role of the Secretariat. In particular, the Office of the Iraq Program did not have responsibility for monitoring, policing or investigating sanctions violations. That role was specifically reserved to the Security Council; its so-called 661 Committee, which monitored the overall sanctions regime and oil-for-food; and member states. The IIC knows or should know this. Yet the IIC insists repeatedly on blaming the OIP for functions, such as investigating sanctions violations, that lay beyond its mandate.

The IIC also faults the secretary general, the deputy secretary general and me for failing to provide information regarding Iraqi demands for illicit kickbacks and surcharges to the Security Council through formal rather than informal channels. But in setting forth its charges, the IIC seems to confuse the decision not to convey information through official channels with a decision not to convey the information at all. On no occasion did OIP or I personally withhold material information from the Security Council members, the secretary general and his deputy. OIP informed the 661 Committee not only on surcharges but also on at least 70 occasions of contracts reflecting suspicious pricing (and hence possible kickbacks), yet the committee declined in every instance to act. Similarly, I informed the U.S. government, effectively the policeman for sanctions violations in the Gulf, of maritime smuggling on a massive scale that was occurring, to no avail.

It is now known that the United States and other member states purposefully allowed this smuggling to occur, in addition to the massive daily shipment of oil by land routes, putting billions of dollars directly into Saddam's pockets in violation of sanctions in order to support Iraq's trading partners, Turkey and Jordan, which are also U.S. allies. It smacks of hypocrisy to criticize OIP for a political compromise made to help the economies of American allies.

The IIC also engages in a lot of second-guessing as to whether I delegated too much authority to senior managers on the ground in Iraq instead of to bureaucrats in New York. I disagree with these criticisms. Micromanagement from 8,000 miles away would have been a recipe for disaster in an immense and complex program like oil-for-food.

It is important to consider what those, including Security Council members, who were observing our performance in real time had to say about its management. Among others, in October 2003, Ambassador John Negroponte of the United States, the president of the Security Council (and now President George W. Bush's director of national intelligence), speaking in his national capacity, commended "the outstanding work" that we had "done both in New York and in the region over the years in the implementation of the program, as well as the "exceptional professionalism and thoroughness" of OIP staff "despite the obstacles and challenges that they face daily."

The program was not perfect, nor was it ever expected to be. It was implemented within the context of a very rigorous sanctions regime, carried out in six-month extensions (and hence always on the verge of closing down), beset by conflicting political pressures, situated in a country in crisis and hindered by fundamental design problems - most notably, the Security Council's decision to allow Saddam to select his own contractors for oil exports and imports of humanitarian supplies, as well as to implement the program in the 15 governorates in the center and south of Iraq, which all but guaranteed political manipulation.

At the same time, my colleagues and I were faced with the grave responsibility of providing basic life necessities to a highly vulnerable population. We took that responsibility both seriously and personally. As the recent tragedy in New Orleans demonstrated, there is a cost to overly bureaucratizing a crisis relief effort that the IIC chooses to ignore. The people of Iraq desperately needed humanitarian relief in real time. Thanks to the oil-for-food program, they received it. That is the essential purpose of a humanitarian program, and we accomplished that purpose, in nearly impossible circumstances. Despite its shortcomings, the program made a major difference in the lives of the Iraqi people.

(Benon V. Sevan is former director of the oil-for-food program for Iraq.)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:19 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.