POLITICS: Annan Refuses to Quit U.N. Over Report

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by drfunk
[Right now it's feeding 1.6 million people in the Darfur region of Sudan.

OOOOPS - guess not.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I really find it amusing how you cling for anything, anything at all to disprove the UN does anything good. People are dying in Sudan, but if it weren't for the WFP a lot more would be dead. Do you really find it amazing people are dying in this region?? I dont but what I do find amazing is the work that the WFP is doing there. How about you congratulate their efforts.

Here, enjoy some facts for once instead of trying to scramble for something to back up your sorry views.

" WFP FEEDS RECORD 1.6 MILLION PEOPLE IN DARFUR IN FEBRUARY

WFP delivered food to 1.6 million people in the western Sudan region of Darfur in February, a 34 percent increase over the number reached in January and the highest monthly total fed since the start of WFP’s Emergency Operation in April 2004.

A total of 28,668 metric tons of WFP food reached 1,611,407 people driven from their homes and local residents compared with 1,206,099 people in January. Dispatches by WFP of food to the three Darfur states rose by 22 percent in February over January."

Source : World Food Programme

thanks,
drfunk

Thats great and all, drfunk, but that does not dismiss those numbers of starvation dead already....

Sudan demands proof of UN Darfur death toll Sudan has demanded the United Nations produce evidence to support a UN statement which said 180,000 people had died of disease and hunger over the past 19 months in the troubled Darfur region. The spokesman for UN emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland said on Monday that Mr Egeland had estimated that more than 180,000 people had died in Sudan's Darfur from hunger and disease over the past 18 months. UN spokesman Brian Grogan said the toll does not include people killed during ongoing violence in Sudan's western region.

180,000 die from hunger in Darfur: UN reveals toll from starvation and disease

The UN has done what to stop the violence, besides allowing Sudan onto the Human Rights Commission?

How about this one:

Another in a long line of UN/French success stories. Eastern Congo is suffering the world's worst current humanitarian crisis, with a death toll outstripping that in Sudan's strife-torn Darfur region, a top United Nations official said on Wednesday.

UN: Congo crisis worse than Darfur


Kofi and the UN can keep issuing reports and "urgings for action," but the thing is that this is supposed to fall under UN jurisdiction.
What is the UN and Kofi doing to prevent and stop what is taking place in these regions, among others?

Further irrelevancy?
When Genocide Is Not Genocide
U.N. Said Not Protecting Sudan Refugees
Darfur Deathtoll May Be 300,000, Say UK Lawmakers

This isn't something that has just started happening. Its been ongoing, for quite some time. Again, What is the UN and Kofi doing to prevent and stop what is taking place in these regions, among others?


And here you say:

as posted by drfunk
Do you really find it amazing people are dying in this region?? I dont but what I do find amazing is the work that the WFP is doing there.

Is that like saying when is a surprise not a surprise?

Let me get this straight. We are talking hundreds of thousands here and your not 'surprised'? You certainly have no problem criticizing the US and those alledged 100,000 deaths in Iraq, but you don't see a problem with the UN inability to protect, prevent, do something to stop the violence, etc. currently taking place in a number of areas of Africa, not just Sudan?!

Got'cha.....




seekerof

[edit on 30-3-2005 by Seekerof]

For all those people seeking a end to Annan.

Please realise that the next head of the U.N is likely to come from Asia and he/she will not be Indian, Chinese or Japanese.

Why don't you Americans think about that for a while.

Seekerof your post is irrelevant as is your anti-UN bias in this. I was simply debunking the claims by FlyersFan that the UN is a useless organization that does nothing and shown just a few of the good things they do.

You blame the UN for not doing enough, yet what you seem not to understand is that the real power of the UN lies in the hand of nations i.e America and the other world powers. The UN hasnt got its own force, it's peacekeepers come from the nations of earth, it cant solve all problems by force. I am not surprised the fact that people are dying in Darfur, nor in Iraq because there is armed conflict there. My disagreement with Iraq is that it was a racket, a war for capitalism and for wall street using US forces as gangsters of capitalism. The UN isn't all powerful, its budget is about US$14 billion, and as i've said the economy of Afghanistan is larger than that. You can't blame the UN for the worlds problems solely, the UN can only do with what nations give it.

The UN does more good than bad. It certainly isnt perfect, but the world would be a darker place without it.

thanks,
drfunk



[edit on 31-3-2005 by drfunk]

[edit on 31-3-2005 by drfunk]

Agreed drfunk.
Seeker doesn't seem to understand just what the UN is capable of, and what they are supposed to do.
They can NOT do it prevent and fix every bad thing in and around Europe. One of their most important tasks is to monitor and warn. Countries have a responsability as well.

If you fail to see the good things the UN has done so far, you're just another ATSer caught up in lame propaganda.

First off, lets start here:

as posted by rapier28
Please realise that the next head of the U.N is likely to come from Asia and he/she will not be Indian, Chinese or Japanese.

Why don't you Americans think about that for a while.

And?
I'm supposed to sweat over a possible Chinese, Indian, Japanese selection?
I'm missing something here...whats exactly is there to think about?
IMHO, anyone would be better than who currently heads the UN.

as posted by drfunk
Seekerof your post is irrelevant as is your anti-UN bias in this.

And your posting(s) smell of pro-Annan and pro-UN. Your point?

the claims by FlyersFan that the UN is a useless organization that does nothing and shown just a few of the good things they do.

Welp, apparently, to millions of people worldwide, the UN is a JOKE and as such, perhaps the claims of FlyersFan concerning the UN only has done "a few good things" is/are correct?
Please, show me the money, k? Show me what they have done to prevent the death and genocide that is taking place in Africa [Sudan, Rwanda, Congo, etc], besides them simply feeding a couple million, mkay?

You blame the UN for not doing enough, yet what you seem not to understand is that the real power of the UN lies in the hand of nations i.e America and the other world powers

Oh wait....if that is so, WTF do we need Annan for? And please don't put "America" into the equation, either! The United Nations is made up of how many nations? Please. Every time there is a damn problem the UN can't fix, "America" gets thrown into the mix. But wait, then you and a host others go on your hypocritical rampages and accuse "America" of being an empire, abusing this and that, blah, blah, blah. Tell you what, drfunk, get a job with the UN and fix it before I get a job there and dismantle the whole dern organization, starting with Kofi Annan.

The UN hasnt got its own force, it's peacekeepers come from the nations of earth, it cant solve all problems by force. I am not surprised the fact that people are dying in Darfur, nor in Iraq because there is armed conflict there. My disagreement with Iraq is that it was a racket, a war for capitalism and for wall street using US forces as gangsters of capitalism. The UN isn't all powerful, its budget is about US$14 billion, and as i've said the economy of Afghanistan is larger than that. You can't blame the UN for the worlds problems solely, the UN can only do with what nations give it.

Yeah, yeah, and yeah.....right...
I got a problem with your continued rhetoric and not understanding that the UN is the head of the 'gangsta' organization: Oil for Food Program ring a bell for starters or is that simply "old news" to you?!

The UN does more good than bad.

Prove it. Talk is cheap and amounts to the continued 'reports and urgings for action' coming from the UN while they continue to do nothing to prevent what has been taking place for a few years in the Sudan. What? The UN going to wait till the numbers reach near-Holocaust: 6 million plus, before they decide that those reports and such have been useless in action, again, amounting to talk is cheap.

as posted by Jakko
Seeker doesn't seem to understand just what the UN is capable of, and what they are supposed to do.

Care to quiz me?
Got a test?
You had better have your ducks in a row before you make assumptions that you can not back or keep, Jakko, k?

They can NOT do it prevent and fix every bad thing in and around Europe.

Excuse me, but is this a Club Med issue?
They can and should!

Countries have a responsability as well.

Their responsibilities are far more than to "monitor and warn." They have the ability to act.
How many nations make up the UN? Kofi is doing what to get them onboard and into doing something rather than acknowledge that there is a problem?
Yeah, you keep standing thinking those lovely thoughts while watching and warning of that impending Holocaust in those regions in Africa. As such, when the Holocaust does happen, please don't go pointing fingers at anyone but where it should get pointed: the UN.
The crap like watching someone get raped or killed and not doing anything.
You feel good just watching and shouting for the police, right?
When they arrive, its toooooo dern late. The deed is already done.

Yeah...I hear ya. Action is within their authority, yet they fail to act, continually....all the while, rape, murder, starvation, and near-genocide currently is still an ongoing event in those regions.........................still watching, huh?





seekerof

[edit on 31-3-2005 by Seekerof]

Seekerof, when Annan was first appointed, he was welcomed with open arms by the U.S.

There is not likely to be a pro-U.S candidate in the U.N. as it is dominated by Asia, Latin America and Africa. Big powers are unlikely to be given the job, therefore it is a case of becareful what you wish for.

Look Seeker, in the end it all boils down to this.
I am very glad the UN is doing so much for so many people.
I allready knew they were not going to make this world an utopia, but you have to ask yourself, is that what you expected?

Kofi Annan may want to do a lot, but without the full cooperation of countries in which horrible things happen, even he is powerless.
Many many people, including yourself seeker have a rather simple way of looking at the UN.

One of their goals is to prevent genocide and people dieing from starvation, there is genocide and people dieing from starvation, so they must have failed.
It just doesn't work like that.

Truth is complex in the case of the UN, and the reasons for why they may have not been able to prevent certain horrible events from happening, have nothing to do with Koffi Annans quality as a president of this organisation, and have everything to do with the immense load of evil morons that the UN has to deal with every day.

Remember that Kofi does not only deal with the core-problems (genocide, war, starvation) of humanity but also the smaller problems with "rich" countries that have a lot to do with these coreproblems.

Originally posted by rapier28
For all those people seeking a end to Annan.

Please realise that the next head of the U.N is likely to come from Asia and he/she will not be Indian, Chinese or Japanese.

Why don't you Americans think about that for a while.

What's wrong with Asians?
Do you see them as being incapable, incompetent or overly against the status quo or current power structure?
Please share why you think Americans "better think about that for a while"!

I almost punched my computer the first time I tried to reply and lost my entire diatribe.



My blood pressure just went off the charts. Regardless, I'll continue another one, without the much had nessicity to post afore.

Well, as it were, Seekerof, as I praticularly enjoy picking you out from the crowd, you seem to have preconcluded that the U.N is defunct on the basis of circumstances the world over which were not wholly accountable unto U.N. hands, furthermore, you cannot compromise that the blood spilled was due to the U.N's inaction. The U.N can act accordingly through it's constitutional limits and the clout of member nations, and as is evident, member nations have a sensenational disposition to disacknowledge U.N resolutions passed.

The U.N may have made ill-judgements in the past, as most political insitutions tend to, but you cannot ask for it's utter destruction on that basis, using the same logic, the United States goverment should tarnish itself on the basis of this spurious war it through the world into. And as was stated earlier, if we are to blame Kofi Annan for the wrong doing of all members of the United Nations, and therefor should be held accountable and liable, why not hold President Bush accountable for the ignorance perpetuated by U.S. soldiers in Abu Graihb? Only makes sense using that logic, no?

It's a far cry to disregard the U.N has a major power in the world, much of which is issued in favour of the stagnation and stabalization of peace, liberty, and freedoms.

Tell me, Seekerof, what would you like the U.N to do in Africa, as you seem to have hinted that the sole responsibility of that region of the worlds sociopolitical atmosphere lays on the shoulders of the U.N? Would you have them conjure a major military force in Africa, which further begs the question, would member countries like the U.S., who are also indebted to the U.N., pay for such endevours? Would you have it break it's own consitution and preemptively strike countries at whim?

Should the U.S. and Europe not administer some aid beign that they did ravage the land it's people for centuries and subsequently left them in thier deletirious state of vendetta and power struggle?

It's a harsh reality we have to face, but, be it resolved, whenever the United Nations tries to pass resolutions it faces Vetos by member countries; let's take a look at these Vetos in regards to Africa:

www.freerepublic.com...

1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.

Here's another interesting one.

Note: During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemcal weapons. On 3/21/1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).

The United States voted AGAINST the issuance of this statement.

Welp, apparently, to millions of people worldwide, the UN is a JOKE and as such, perhaps the claims of FlyersFan concerning the UN only has done "a few good things" is/are correct?

A million people decrying the U.N. does not make thier opinion substantianted, as is evident in, FlyerFans, which are just ignorant filled ad hominem remarks; it's useless to discuss this issue with him without him reverting to some irellevent remarks.

It's easy to blame the U.N on genocides that happen the world over without blaming those who commite the genocides. Good logic.

Deep

Originally posted by bios
What's wrong with Asians?
Do you see them as being incapable, incompetent or overly against the status quo or current power structure?
Please share why you think Americans "better think about that for a while"!

The point i was making is that alot of Americans seem to want to get rid of Annan and thinking that they could get a "puppet" head in that is favourable to the U.S.

My point is that it will not happen. They should be happy that Annan is there and should not seek to push him for political gain.

There are very few countries in Asia that will produce a "puppet" head for the U.S considering that big powers like Japan will not be allowed to nominate.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by rapier28]

Originally posted by Seekerof
And your posting(s) smell of pro-Annan and pro-UN. Your point?

actually i'm not pro annan at all. My beef is that people say ignorant statements like 'the UN does nothing' or 'the UN kills more people than it helps' and my favourite 'the UN is irrelavent'. I hate the Oil For Food scandal and the congo incident as much as any joe.

Welp, apparently, to millions of people worldwide, the UN is a JOKE and as such, perhaps the claims of FlyersFan concerning the UN only has done "a few good things" is/are correct?
Please, show me the money, k? Show me what they have done to prevent the death and genocide that is taking place in Africa [Sudan, Rwanda, Congo, etc], besides them simply feeding a couple million, mkay?

FlyersFan said they dont do anything and 'wanted justification for the money spent on it'. I gave her the excellent work of the world food programme, something i'm sure you'll agree that by itself does much more good than any harm the UN has ever done. To the 'millions' worldwide, a lot of them are fat lazy americans, no-one's ever asked the hundreds of millions of people the UN has fed over the past decades have they?

Oh wait....if that is so, WTF do we need Annan for? And please don't put "America" into the equation, either! The United Nations is made up of how many nations? Please. Every time there is a damn problem the UN can't fix, "America" gets thrown into the mix. But wait, then you and a host others go on your hypocritical rampages and accuse "America" of being an empire, abusing this and that, blah, blah, blah. Tell you what, drfunk, get a job with the UN and fix it before I get a job there and dismantle the whole dern organization, starting with Kofi Annan.

Ok, lets look at the title "United Nations" which would mean it's an organization of NATIONS. The UN hasnt got carriers, it hasnt got a military, the US does. Out of the 190 or so nations on this planet, there's 10 or 20 that can actually do something and intervene in most situations globally, because of power projection capability and when things happen its usually a coalition. What do you expect the UN to do? come on, you blame them for their shortfalls when they have nothing to work with and rely on nations like America and Australia to do the work. It's only a bureaucratic organization on the international politics level that's a forum for nations to work in and with eachother, it isn't a military or economic power. America is both of those. Australia's military spending is about the same as the entire UN budget and we cant do all these things you blame the UN for can we? What we can do is blame the nations who are responsible for these crimes! what a thought!

The UN does more GOOD than BAD

Prove it. Talk is cheap and amounts to the continued 'reports and urgings for action' coming from the UN while they continue to do nothing to prevent what has been taking place for a few years in the Sudan. What? The UN going to wait till the numbers reach near-Holocaust: 6 million plus, before they decide that those reports and such have been useless in action, again, amounting to talk is cheap.

now i knew you'd fall into this trap. Your problem is that you BLAME the UN (the bureaucratic organization) for the worlds problems, well lets get things straight, the UN isnt killing people in Darfur, the UN wasnt using chemical weapons on Kurds in Iraq, the UN wasn't comitting genocide in Yugoslavia and the UN wasn't responsible for the tsunami. You blame the UN that it's their fault, but they aren't the one's doing the harm there are they? it's the bad guys and nations who are, not the UN itself! Now the UN helps hundreds of millions of people every year through a variety of programs and a multitude of treaties and charters have been set up with the UN which many nations are signatory to. It provides a forum where nations can meet and discuss and also argue and quarrel. I'd rather that any day over nothing.

Okay time for a few facts and a few more UN programs :

The United Nations Development Programme

"UNDP is the UN’s global development network, an organization advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national development challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the people of UNDP and our wide range of partners."

Seems like that's some positive and constructive work there

The Office of the United Nations High Commisioner for Refugees
UNHCR

Basic facts
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established on December 14, 1950 by the United Nations General Assembly. The agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. It strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to return home voluntarily, integrate locally or to resettle in a third country.

In more than five decades, the agency has helped an estimated 50 million people restart their lives. Today, a staff of more than 6,000 people in more than 116 countries continues to help some 17 million persons.

wow 50 million people in 50 years and 6,000 employees in 116 countries helping 17 million people? that's some pretty good work there, considering the tiny budget the UN gets! (you know Bush's budget gave the DoD an increase which is larger than the entire UN budget ?? and that $80 billion for Iraq this year that Bush wants is over 5 times the size of the UN budget?


United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNEP

UNEP, established in 1972, is the voice for the environment within the United Nations system. UNEP acts as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment. To accomplish this, UNEP works with a wide range of partners, including United Nations entities, international organizations, national governments, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and civil society.

UNEP also hosts several environmental convention secretariats including the Ozone Secretariat and the Montreal Protocol's Multilateral Fund, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Migratory Species, and a growing family of chemicals-related agreements, including the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and the recently negotiated Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

That sounds good to me, an international organization dedicated to the protection of our environment!

United Nations Population FundUNFPA

UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, is the world's largest international source of funding for population and reproductive health programmes. Since we began operations in 1969, the Fund has provided nearly $6 billion in assistance to developing countries.

UNFPA works with governments and non-governmental organizations in over 140 countries, at their request, and with the support of the international community

UNFPA assistance works. Since 1969, access to voluntary family planning programmes in developing countries has increased and fertility has fallen by half, from six children per woman to three. Nearly 60 per cent of married women in developing countries have chosen to practise contraception, compared with 10-15 per cent when we started our work.

That's pretty impressive to me! an organization that is tackling a really hard issue and promoting safe sex!

Ya know Seekerof, there's so many worthwhile programs that the UN does that touches hundreds of millions of poor and war weary people every year I really think that you can at least agree with me that the UN is doing more good than bad (Is the UN killing hundreds of millions of people a year? or are the bad guys and the bad nations?) and that a measly US$14 billion spent on it every year is really worthwhile!

Now the UN isnt perfect, it has its problems and they need to be fixed. But instead of criticizing at every turn with propaganda, why dont we acknowledge the UN's relevance and importance in the work that it does and that it has problems that need fixing and lets get in it.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 1-4-2005 by drfunk]

[edit on 1-4-2005 by drfunk]

Kudos to Jakko, Rapier and ZeroDeep for providing some great facts and trying to educate these people!

thanks,
drfunk

Great post drfunk.
I hoped seeker and flyersfan were capable of educating themselves regarding the UN, but I am still glad you took the time to summ up a part of their efforts.

The UN is truly one of the best organisations in this world I think, some of the countries in the UN may not cooperate from time to time, but in the end there is not an organisation that helps this much people with this budget.

Originally posted by Jakko
.................
Hmm are you reading the same things I am reading?
They say, the UN does not hire terrorists, they hire people that are part of Hamas and not every Hamas member is a militant or a terrorist.
And they're right.

Now what's the scandal here?

[edit on 30-3-2005 by Jakko]

How about Hamas is a terrorist organization which is recognized by most of the world as such.... a terrorist organization. Annan sure chooses the wrong people to work for him...for some reason...

If you actually read the article, it comes from Canada, and they were going to investigate into this because Canada, along with many other countries, recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization.

If you read the article it is not "they" who say that not all members of Hamas are terrorist... It was Annan speaking through his spokesman.... Of course he is going to say this, he can't be acknowledging that they have hired terrorists.....

[edit on 1-4-2005 by Muaddib]

Annan chooses to work with a lot of dubious people, organisations, regimes and countries, in order to be able to help as many people as the UN is helping.
It is a compromise and a choice.

The "either with or against us" attitude that Bush so elegantly displays, would be a disaster for the UN, as it would decrease their capability and reach dramaticly, making them unable to help a lot of innocent victims.

It doesn't mean the UN supports the Hamans, neither does it mean that UN doesn't care about the goals and orientation of Hamas.
It just means that the UN wants to be able to help, even when it means together with Hamas.

Yep, you said it right, the UN are working together with a terrorist organization to reach their goals, which i doubt it is altruistic.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Yep, you said it right, the UN are working together with a terrorist organization to reach their goals, which i doubt it is altruistic.

Need i remind you of the groups that the U.S have worked in the past?

Does Bin Laden and the Mujahaddin ring a bell.

Originally posted by rapier28

Need i remind you of the groups that the U.S have worked in the past?

Does Bin Laden and the Mujahaddin ring a bell.

The Mujahaddin were fighting the Russians, it was only natural that we would help them back then beause the Russians were also our sworn enemies.... The Mujahaddin were not considered terrorists that i know of by anyone back then, except the Russians.

Anyways, is Annan now going to start waging wars with a known terrorist organization?...

[edit on 2-4-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

The Mujahaddin were fighting the Russians, it was only natural that we would help them back then beause the Russians were also our sworn enemies.... The Mujahaddin were not considered terrorists that i know of by anyone back then, except the Russians.

Anyways, is Annan now going to start waging wars with a known terrorist organization?...

[edit on 2-4-2005 by Muaddib]

Who regards Hamas as a terrorist group?

The United States and Israel.

Hamas is now engaging in politics and elections and is much less radical then the other groups. The U.S also used to support the IRA, against your "sworn enemies" Britain? it's not up to the United States to label and decide what it can do and what others can do.

Engaging Hamas is a smart move.

The Mujahaddin were using the same tactics against the Russians as the Insurgents are using against Americans right now. Terrorism against civilians was first perpurtrated by Islamists on Russia, not the States.

No one called them Terrorists back then because western governments supported them.