Kofi Annan: "Sad day for the United Nations"

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

A sad day indeed. i think Kofi Annan may be neglecting some aspects here - he had an opportunity, on several occasions, to speak out more. At any rate what’s done is done - now the people of Iraq must pay the price.

Annan highlights Iraqis’ ‘plight’, BBC, 19 March 2003

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has expressed concern for the millions of civilians who could be caught in the looming war in Iraq. “It is the plight of the Iraqi people which is now my most immediate concern,” he told a meeting of the UN Security Council in New York - just hours before a US deadline for war was due to expire.

Mr Annan said Iraqis had suffered a lot over the years and were faced now with a disaster “which could easily lead to epidemics and starvation”.

During the meeting, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia renewed their criticism of the US decision to use force to disarm Iraq.

Mr Annan told the security council it was “a sad day for the United Nations”.

“I know that millions of people around the world share this sense of disappointment and are deeply alarmed,” he said.

The Secretary General said nearly a million Iraqi children were suffering from malnutrition, and the coming conflict would make things much worse.

He said efforts to relieve the plight of the Iraqi people could yet prove to be the task around which the security council could rebuild its unity. His appeal came after opponents of the use of force in Iraq repeated their objections - most notably Germany, France, Russia and Syria.

“Germany emphatically rejects the impending war,” Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said. He said Iraq had been slow and misleading during the inspection process. But he added that no-one could seriously believe that wars of disarmament were the way forward.

His French counterpart, Dominique de Villepin, said the crisis had highlighted two conflicting visions - one based on the use of force to cut through the complexities of the modern world, and the other built on the idea that progress in international relations depended on dialogue. “To those who think that the scourge of terrorism will be eradicated through what is done in Iraq, we say that they run the risk of failing in their objective,” he said.

But Mr de Villepin called on the UN to pull together and address Iraq’s humanitarian needs, and said France would take its full part in that process.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also condemned the US decision to go to war. But he also voiced hope that diplomacy could still prevail, stressing that resolving the Iraqi problem was “impossible without the Security Council”. Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara said the war against Iraq would return to haunt the US and Britain. The session began with the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix expressing “sadness” that it had not been possible to produce the assurances needed about Iraq’s arsenal, in the three-and-a-half months of inspections. He presented a work programme which sets out the key remaining disarmament tasks for Iraq.

He acknowledged, however, that his programme “would seem to have only limited practical relevance in the current situation” since all the inspectors had followed orders to leave Iraq under the threat of imminent war.

2

*"It is the plight of the Iraqi people which is now my most immediate concern," *

Yes, that is the one of the biggest concerns of those who are opposing this illegal American war, and one of the least concerns for the few states who want to wage war.

Let's pray for the brave and suffering Iraqi people.

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Let's pray for the brave and suffering Iraqi people.
[/QUOTE]

The people of Iraq are "unpeople", Malik - their plight does not register in the media bytes and massive TV coverage that has already started with this invasion. The coverage is already resembling a videogame, just how the 1991 'Gulf War' was presented by some media outlets.

They desperately need our prayers.

4

In my mind, I must put some blame of the current impasse on Kofi Anan too. The dude is the Secretary General of UN and he let the whole thing blow up so badly. He should have taken some bold stands, instead of wishy washying the whole time, trying to appease the Americans. I think the idea of rotating the Secy Gen'ship to all regions is counter-productive. Even before Anan, Mr Butros-Butros Ghali was equally ineffective. We needed a strong Asian or European with some backbone to keep UN relevant. As such, we are just reduced to moan its demise.

Its good he is concerned about the expected human catastrophe about to unfold in the region. Because, after this fiasco, that is what the UN will be reduced to. A humanitarian agency, looking for donations and helping women and children. Its peace-keeping role is finished. It has now virtually no relevance in International Affairs.

5

:rolleyes:

magarmach ke aanso :rolleyes:

us ko toh chullu bhar paani mein doob ke mar jana chahiyay

i have seen the guy in real life. he was giving a speech in my uni and during it there were some students protesting the iraq sanctions…this is like two, three yrs ago…and he made some really not funny and inconsiderate remarks towards them in his speech…being the ‘un secretary general’ :rolleyes: i would have expected a more gentle and nicer reconciliatory response…lekin us ne rakh ke baycharon kee bisti kee…usi din se mujhay ye banda psand naheen hae…

everyone has seen now that the UN is obviously a JOKE use by the kaafirs to oppress Muslim countries

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

The people of Iraq are "unpeople", Malik - their plight does not register in the media bytes and massive TV coverage that has already started with this invasion. The coverage is already resembling a videogame, just how the 1991 'Gulf War' was presented by some media outlets.

They desperately need our prayers.
[/QUOTE]

The American's have been boasting of the fact that they will drop more bombs on Iraq on the first day, than they did in the entire six weeks of the first Gulf War. If that is the case can you imagine the devestating destruction and killing of Iraqi civilians?

7

**

That is truly awful. No words can express what a horrendous mental anguish this will represent. Two well-respected Norwegian psychologists have conducted child health surveys in Iraq over the past decade, and they discovered that Iraqi children were “consumed by a fear which they could not discuss with their parents”. Can anyone here imagine, even for a second, what will go through these young childrens’ minds when they hear and see these bombs falling upon their city, their home?

Kofi Annan was right, sad day indeed not just for the United Nations but for the world at large. He should just resign and call it quits. He has proved his uselessness.

8

yes, I don't think UN needs to be there. As some Radio channel and it's hosts in USA were saying that UN building should be made a night club we don't need then anymore....etc So do Muslim countries need UN at all? Are they there to condemn ONLY? Kofi Annan Huh

9

**

UN tries to halt staff protest against attack, Chris McGreal
The Guardian, 20 March 2003

Kofi Annan’s office has barred UN staff from open opposition to the war in Iraq. Mr Annan’s chief of staff, Syed Iqbal Riza, has written to the heads of all UN agencies to halt attempts to organise protests against the attack by publicly expressing support for the authority of the security council and the secretary general’s efforts to avoid conflict.

“United Nations staff are, of course, entitled to personal views and political convictions and their desire to be of assistance to the secretary general is appreciated,” he wrote in the letter, headed “possible initiatives by UN staff for peacefully resolving the Iraq crisis”.

But it goes on to add that “international civil servants … do not have the freedom of pri vate persons to take sides or to express their convictions publicly on controversial matters, either individually or as members of a group”.

A senior UN official said there was considerable unhappiness within the organisation at criticisms levelled by George Bush to justify bypassing the security council.

“There is a feeling among many personnel that the US used the UN until it didn’t suit them and then they trash it,” one senior UN official said.

“We cannot openly campaign against the war but we wanted to make a public gesture - probably a petition - in support of Kofi Annan’s efforts to ensure the security council as a whole had the last word. But he does not want a confrontation with the Americans on this.”

10

If Annan feels so much let down by whole issue why doesnt he resign taking the moral responsility of whole mess.
Why is he sticking to chair !!!
After all this has been darkest day for UNO.Why would any other nation will listen to UNO now?

11

Sinse the War has begun unfortunately, I think Kofi Annan wants the U.N. members to move forward and to concentrate on providing for the Iraqi citizens and to concentrate on a plan for rebuilding Iraq.

We can all keep thinking if only this...if only that....IF Only! But dwelling on what happend won't change what happend unfortunately. So I think he is right to try to move forward.

I thought he made a good speech and I think he let it be tactfully known that he was disappointed in what happend.

12

Nadia: I think talk of leaving the Un is not something we should consider. The UN did deprive the US of legitmacy for it's actions. It has provided Pakistan and the arabs with forums for their problems. UN imposed ceasefires have precvented conflict from dragging on in countless cases. It also saved a lot of lives in Bosnia and Kosovo. Leaving the UN is not the answer.

US talk of leaving the UN and refusing to abide by agreements like the GATT/WTO, Kyoto protocol, War Crimes treaty. Reflects badly on the US, as it shows the US considers itself greater then any International Law.

13

Zakk, you are absolutely right. i was wrong to endorse that.

i said it in my usual ranting mood. i realize the UN has been a force for good in many diverse regions of the world... it possesses so much potential to do so much that is productive.
As just one of the numerous examples, UNRWA is also doing a great deal of work in the Occupied Territories - without it, i am not certain how many Palestinians would literally be dying of starvation. They also have established programmes to educate young Palestinian children and i think are trying to provide some form of sustainable employment for Palestinian women.

Sorry, i apologize. You are right.

14

No need to apologise Nadia; people are angry with whats happened and it was a natural reaction. My point was something else, while Kofi Annan probably should resign, with the way the secretary general is appointed the US has a veto power over the successor, they would definitely use it to make sure a US puppet was appointed (check back and see what they did to the last Secretary General).

The other point is this, many hard line Americans see the UN as a threat to their domination of the World. There is already talk of making the UN shift to Paris! There are also ways of making the UN organising the UN to condemn the Iraq attack. In the end the only people who dislike the UN are people who think it hinders there plans. After all with a budget of around 12 billion dollars, the Un has done some good and I think the World is a marginally better place because of the UN.

15

UN irrelevant or in need of proper reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/opinion/22LUCK.html

Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy
By EDWARD C. LUCK

he eerie whine of precision-guided missiles over Baghdad contrasts with the equally shrill but increasingly muddled debate over the legality of the conflict. The trans-Atlantic war of words has laid bare competing visions of the purpose of the United Nations Security Council. Was the council meant just to pass judgment on the use of force — or to organize its collective use? Given the imbalance of power between the United States and the rest of the world, should it embrace American military might — or seek to constrain it?

Unless these contradictions are reconciled, the council will be relegated to dealing with local crises, as in East Timor and Sierra Leone. The United Nations will retain operational roles in peacekeeping, mediation, humanitarian relief, human rights, development and nation-building. But if lesser powers contrive to turn the council into a forum for counterbalancing American power with votes, words and public appeals, they will further erode its legitimacy and credibility. Given the experience of the League of Nations, the architects of the United Nations were determined to bind American power and global decision-making, not to set them at odds.

The United Nations, sadly, has drifted far from its founding vision. Its Charter neither calls for a democratic council nor relegates the collective use of force to a last resort. It was a wartime document of a military alliance, not a universal peace platform. Pleas for reform of the Security Council, however, stress equity and representation — not effectiveness and responsibility. The reformers would mimic the political correctness and practical impotence of the League’s Council. Then, as now, most states had little stomach for enforcement.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. By combining muscle and legal authority, Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter promised to set the United Nations apart from the feckless League. Yet, as France, Russia and China looked the other way, Saddam Hussein stripped the United Nations Security Council of its credibility layer by layer.

Last September, President Bush ungallantly pointed out that the council, like the proverbial emperor, has no clothes. However weak his multilateral credentials, on this he is right: the council has shed credibility for so long that more worldly leaders have forgotten what it looks like. His warnings about the United Nations morphing back into the League of Nations have fallen on deaf ears in capitals that would prefer a weak council to a strong one dominated by the United States. They are as ambivalent about American power as Washington is about international organization.

Reforming the Security Council is inconceivable without a reconciliation among the major powers. Paris and Berlin should understand that neither European unity nor global leadership can be built on a platform of denial and demonstrations. Neither Paris nor London is about to cede its permanent seat to the European Union, and intra-European bickering has been a major obstacle to Security Council reform.

For its part, the Bush administration should do more listening and less preaching. Most countries are neither friends nor foes, and none likes to be taken for granted. If Washington shows more respect for the agendas of others, they are more likely to respond to ours.

As long as the United States has more military and economic power than any other country, the voting rules in the Security Council will appear arbitrary. Under such conditions, the council should vote less and seek consensus more, giving rogue states less opportunity for employing splitting tactics. Projecting a positive vision, the United Nations Charter speaks of concurring votes of the permanent members, not of their vetoes. The Big Five — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — were meant to seek common ground, not to deny the validity of one another’s security concerns or to posture for public approval.

Since the United Nations no longer tries to organize or oversee the use of force itself, this has been left largely to the discretion of member states. Even Secretary General Kofi Annan has acknowledged that unilateral military action is sometimes necessary. The forced removals of Idi Amin in Uganda, or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, were justified “in the eyes of the world” because of “the internal character of the regimes,” he said in June 1998. Likewise, the council did not authorize the use of force by the West in Kosovo, the United States in Afghanistan, Russia in Chechnya, or, most recently, France in Ivory Coast.

Opponents of the war in Iraq have been highly selective in their reading of the United Nations Charter. It is a compact by which the member states accept constraints on their use of force in the context of a binding system of collective security. Those who for years have sought to weaken the sanctions and inspections efforts in Iraq — undermining this compact — have set the stage for the use of force. It is hypocritical for them now to claim that the rest of the Charter’s rules are sacrosanct.

Unless both the enforcement and legal pillars of the Charter are reinforced, what is left will indeed look a lot like the ill-fated League of Nations. Will the real United Nations please stand up?

Edward C. Luck is director of the Center on International Organization at Columbia University.