With all due respect (which is indeed little as you have not earned much in your time at the UN) Mr. Annan, you sir are a hypocrite. You have no room or right to malign the U.S. or our current chief executive officer.
Besides, if you knew your history as well as you think you did, you would also know that Harry Truman is not that beloved of a president in the U.S. memory. His administration had many, many problems, and in some respects mirrors some of the corruption and lacksadaisical approach that Bill Clinton's did... but then, maybe that is why you "respect" him so, Mr. Annan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S_Truman
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Annan has been completely incompetent. How many genocides happened under his watch? What about sex scandals? He is just deflecting focus from his own failures with his anti U.S. stuff.
salesortonscom wrote: Annan has been completely incompetent. How many genocides happened under his watch?
Secretary Annan tried on several occasions to end genocide in Africa. The problem is that he had only carrots and no sticks, and he was negotiating with regimes who only understand sticks.
My own perception is that he is a deeply principled man, and although I don't agree with him on some political issues, I admire him for his convictions.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
Is it wrong for Secretary Annan to be critical of America? I can understand some of his frustration: The US is not a firm supporter of the UN--we use the UN when it serves our own political purposes, igonore the UN when it doesn't, and most of the time (out of the corner of our mouth) deride the UN's incompetence.
I share Mr. Annan's criticism of US foreign policy in at least one area: We have spent far too many resources ensuring our continued access to cheap Persian Gulf oil instead of using those resources to address human suffering in other parts of the world, especially in Africa.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
We should pull out of the UN. They are ineffective and waste our money. For instance, in the wake of the Tsunami a couple of years ago that wiped out coastal areas, the UN was one of the last organizations in, and their relief efforts were riddled by incompetence and largely ineffectual. Also, name me one major armed conflict that the UN has played a major role in solving.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Arbi, from a military perspective, I agree that we should pull out of the UN for two reasons:
1. The purpose of our military is to fight and win our nation's wars. We don't need UN permission or even approval to do so, no matter to what shore that fight takes us. When an enemy attacks us, our response should be immediate and overwhelming. This is where my biggest criticism for President Bush lies. Within 2 hours of the 9/11 attacks, our fleet in the Gulf should have had Tomahawks on the way. Within 12 hours, our B-52s out of Diego Garcia should have been carpet bombing Al Qaeda positions. Within 2 weeks we should have had overwhelming force on the ground. We had the intel we needed to act. Instead, we wasted months coordinating a response through the UN.
2. Our military members take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to obey the orders of those appointed over them. I absolutely do not support the concept of our military serving under a foreign commander or being used to carry out UN missions. If the US wants to contribute forces to the UN, fine. Let's establish a seperate force for that purpose, and charge the UN for their services. We need to stop spending the lives and resources of our military for an organization to which we owe no allegiance.
My
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
What more can be done in Africa, especially if the UN has no military power? I hear about attrocities happening, and I think it would be great if we could stop that kind of stuff, but I have no clue what's a reasonable or viable solution?
And if you gave the UN power, how long would it be before it turned its power against the US and its interests?
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Is it wrong for Secretary Annan to be critical of America? I can understand some of his frustration: The US is not a firm supporter of the UN--we use the UN when it serves our own political purposes, igonore the UN when it doesn't, and most of the time (out of the corner of our mouth) deride the UN's incompetence.
I share Mr. Annan's criticism of US foreign policy in at least one area: We have spent far too many resources ensuring our continued access to cheap Persian Gulf oil instead of using those resources to address human suffering in other parts of the world, especially in Africa.
You probably have some fairly valid points there roper. But, we are not the only nation that is guilty of this. I think it would be hard to find any nation who has not supported the UN when it has served their political purposes, ignored it when it hasn't, and derided the UN under their breath for it's incompetence most of the time.
And, I believe the short list is extremely short of any industrialized, first world nations that have not spent too many resources and treasure to ensure continued access to "cheap" Persian Gulf oil (cheap is relative since price is controlled by a cartel) instead of allocating it to address human suffering throughout the world.
The latter argument is one that too often gets dumped on the US as a solo guilt trip, when per capita, the US and it's citizens are shown to often contribute more to disaster relief and other things than most other countries combined.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Having close family ties to Canada I may be better aware than most Americans that Canadian General Romeo Dallaire was commander of Canada's UN "peacekeeping mission" in Rwanda in 1994, at the time of the massacre of reportedly over 800,000 Christian Tutsis by Moslem Hutus. He was tipped off by an informant of plans by the Hutu government to register Tutsis as a set-up to a planned massacre. Dallaire advised UN headquarters by fax or telex and requested permission to seize the Hutus’ hidden weapons that were eventually used in the massacre. Kofi Annan, later Secretary General of the UN but then head of the UN’s peacekeeping division, refused to authorize the mission. Instead, Annan instructed Dallaire to belay plans to intervene, to provide his intelligence to the same Hutu government that was planning the massacre and report the planned extermination to Rwanda's then President Juvenal Habyarimana, even though the killings were being planned by the presidents' staff, and confiscate weapons hidden by Tutsis.
UN officials reportedly tried to block probes to determine who saw the fax and who ordered General Dallaire to abandon his plan to intervene. In a letter to the Belgian government that got published, Kofi Annan refused to allow Dallaire to testify before a Belgian panel that investigated the events in Rwanda because he did not believe it was "in the interest of the organization". The incriminating fax bears a label documenting that it originated with Kofi Annan, and was also published in some by some media sources.
General Dallaire became an emotional basket case from the event and left the Army shortly after the events in Rwanda.
As for Annan’s agenda for America and other free Western nations, in a Council on Foreign Relations speech, 4/22/97, as reported in the Sept 1999 McAlvany Intelligence Advisor and elsewhere, he stated: "Clearly we cannot meet the challenges of the new millennium with an instrument designed for the very different circumstances of the middle of the twentieth century. Make no mistake about it, the anticipated reforms will erode national sovereignty, infringe on personal liberties, and lead the world into a system of global governance." In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly 18 Sept 1999, Annan stated: "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalism and international cooperation." (UN release, "Two Concepts of Sovereignty")
This is precisely what we should expect from an organization with a charter authored by the proven traitor Alger Hiss and one of Stalin’s top men, V.M. Molotov. I strongly suggest that it is past time that we Americans not only cut off financial support of the UN, but withdraw as a member of the organization and invite it to park itself in a location with a philosophy more in keeping with the majority of voting members. I suggest Moscow or Peking. I fully realize such action could lead to us eventually standing alone against the rest of the world. Fair enough. I think Patrick Henry had the answer for that.
The commander of the Canadian peacekeeper force (under the UN) to Rwanda in 1994 learned of the planned genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus, and felt it was within his perview to seize weapons caches to prevent it. Okay, noble thought, but probably well outside the legal rights of the UN in a sovereign nation (I'm sure we all agree there). So, the UN told him no, you can't do this. But, you, General do have our authority to tell the government of this nation you are in that we know, or have received intelligence about, this.
Here is where it gets fuzzy for me. General Dallaire was also instructed by the UN (Annan) to confiscate weapons caches the Tutsis had stashed?
Why was Belgium conducting an inquirey after it was all over? Was it actually the World Court or some auspices of the EU? I'm just not clear why Belgium would have had any reason, unless it was asked to as the former colonial power for Rwanda and the neighboring country (can't remember name) where the two presidents were assassinated in the plane being shot down that was the flash point which started the whole genocide.
Annan's attitudes and actions speak for themself in essentially supporting what you have stated was his agenda concerning dissolving of national sovereignty to a quasi-"world"-government that is not based on truth or freedom.
The level of corruption at and within the UN is such that I would agree with you that the only way to correct it as America is to wholely dissolve it. Of course, there is a good chance that by so doing, the level of warfare and bloodshed could increase as the "incentives" to play nice will no longer be there for all the petty dictators and demogogues.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Rwanda was under Belgian rule from after WW I to 1962. I'm sure the influence of Belgium extended beyond the date of Rwanda's independence in 1962 as is typical of other areas of Africa and their former European masters.
