Kofi Annan's Uncertain Future

US Senator Norm Coleman says that Kofi Annan must go. I agree. The UN has become a massive and expensive hoax that shoud be disbanded. Seeing that the US provides 22% of the UN budget they should have some say in the dysfunctional body's leadership.

While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign. The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose. Mr. Annan was at the helm of the U.N. for all but a few days of the Oil-for-Food program, and he must, therefore, be held accountable for the U.N.'s utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses. The consequences of the U.N.'s ineptitude cannot be overstated: Saddam was empowered to withstand the sanctions regime, remain in power, and even rebuild his military. Needless to say, he made the Iraqi people suffer even more by importing substandard food and medicine under the Oil-for-Food program and pawning it off as first-rate humanitarian aid. Since it was never likely that the U.N. Security Council, some of whose permanent members were awash in Saddam's favors, would ever call for Saddam's removal, the U.S. and its coalition partners were forced to put troops in harm's way to oust him by force. Today, money swindled from Oil-for-Food may be funding the insurgency against coalition troops in Iraq and other terrorist activities against U.S. interests. Simply put, the troops would probably not have been placed in such danger if the U.N. had done its job in administering sanctions and Oil-for-Food.

Comments

[DA mal]

What would emerge in the place of the UN, if it was disbanded? When I think of the absence of a UN-like body, I imagine the alliance system prior to WWI, with its own inherent corruptions, costs, imbalances and exclusions. This resulted in a vast, pointless and catastrophically destructive arms race. And it was not sufficiently stable to prevent war.

The sceptic's problem with the UN is that it appears to make a government out of diplomacy. And the sceptic's view is always valuable. But is it not extreme to take the problems of an institution like the UN and declare that they are a reason to destroy it? Systems can be made to work better, I should hope.

[Vaz Lube]

The same but under a different name.

First it was called League of Nations,
Secondly it is called United Nations.
Thridly it will be called something like ABC, Appeasment, Bribery and Corruption?

UN is undemoratic and unrepresentative. I would probably be very glad to see UN abolished.

[Steve]

I wouldnt mind Clinton taking over from Kofi.

My grievances against the UN relate primarily to its relationship with Israel - a relationship that to me typifies all that is wrong with the UN. I refer you to this article - Harvard Israel Review - 50 year history between Israel and UN

[Steve]

Scrap that - above link is dead...

Not all bodies of the UN are a failure, so Mal is correct on some counts. The WHO is seemingly succesful.

But the UN seems to generally place diplomatic neceties above security - except when the target is Israel.

The mandate of the UN isn't the problem. But a failed implementation ruins an entire project.