What hasn't this guy screwed up?

[zenith-nadir]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What hasn't this guy screwed up?

Now, how does Annan compare? Does he have greater or less control over the operations of the UN than the president has over the operations of the US government?

In my opinion the buck has to stop somewhere. In this case Annan is the boss of the U.N. and it is his job to, A) take the credit for a job well done or B) take the fall for the largest scandal in U.N. history.

To say he is blameless or "it's all his undelings fault" is akin to absolving Ken Lay for Enron or Bernard Ebbers for Worldcom. At the very least Kofi Anan is incompetent.

 

[Rasmus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What hasn't this guy screwed up?

Now, how does Annan compare? Does he have greater or less control over the operations of the UN than the president has over the operations of the US government?

That last is not a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know, and would be interested if anyone can point me somewhere that describes the governing process at the UN, particularly with respect to the powers delegated to the secretary-general.

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/pages/sg_office.html

This as a starting point; without reading it myself now.

It is my understanding that the actual power the SG holds is very limited, unless the UN either follows his lead or decides to lead itself.

Compared to the President of the US, he is as powerless as you and I. Nobody (let alone the entire armed forces of a not very small country) needs to follow his orders - other than his secretaries, perhaps, or any assembly that he might be presiding over at the time; and then only as far as the rules of conduct are concerend and definitely not the descisions they take.

I am not aware of any powers that lie with him, and it would contradict my understanding of the UN if he had such powers.

On a more personal note, I would think that those responsible for a genocide would be the few planning and ordering it, and the many that carry it out. But I may be wrong....

Rasmus.

 

[delphi_ote]

Re: Re: Re: What hasn't this guy screwed up?

Technically no, morally yes... Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire - head of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Rwanda - pleaded with Annan to intervene before the killings began. Mr. Annan refused to act, or to say anything publicly. Over the course of 100 days more than 800,000 people were killed because Annan buried his head in the sand.

I've actually talked briefly with General Dallaire. I have the utmost respect for the man. He experienced a hell I could never imagine.

But he seemed to place blame more on the inertia of the international community than anything else. Annan ostensibly made an effort. I think singling him out is no more justified than singling out the U.S. for failing to act. Do you have any evidence that he "buried his head in the sand" or do you have other proposed actions he could have taken? As I understand it, the Secretary General has little direct power and acts mainly as a broker and negotiator.

The international community failed in Germany, failed in Croatia, failed in Cambodia, failed in Congo, failed in Iraq, failed in Rawanda, and is failing again in Darfur. No matter how many times we say "never again," we just don't seem to learn the lessons that would prevent the next genocide.

 

[KelvinG]

I think Annan should try and find a way to blame this on the CIA.
Deferral of responsibility is all the rage in politics these days.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What hasn't this guy screwed up?

Annan is the boss, responsible for overseeing the programmes and policies laid down by the United Nations. Therefore if the largest scandal happens in UN history under his watch he is r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-l-e for it.

And I just pointed out to you that the UN is not organised like, for example, the US presidency. He is not the president, he is the secretary general. He did not cause the genocide, but was partly responsible for the clearly inadequate response to the threat. However, in the scheme of responsibility that the UN runs under, he is no more responsible than the members of the security council.

I think the mistake that everyone made was to not believe that Rwandans were capable of such an act, I know that the whole world was stunned by it, because it was so remarkable.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What hasn't this guy screwed up?

In my opinion the buck has to stop somewhere. In this case Annan is the boss of the U.N. and it is his job to, A) take the credit for a job well done or B) take the fall for the largest scandal in U.N. history.

To say he is blameless or "it's all his undelings fault" is akin to absolving Ken Lay for Enron or Bernard Ebbers for Worldcom. At the very least Kofi Anan is incompetent.

I don't recall anyone here saying he is blameless, nor that it is all his underlings fault. The organisation of the UN gives the security council much of the real power. He is only as blameless as them.

 

[Rasmus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What hasn't this guy screwed up?

However, in the scheme of responsibility that the UN runs under, he is no more responsible than the members of the security council.

I am certain that if I could be asked to have a look at the charter, I would find that the (combined vote of the) Security Counsil has a lot more power than the Secretary General could ever dream of. ("All vs. nothing" might not be entirely accurate but does come pretty darned close.)

Rasmus.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What hasn't this guy screwed up?

I've actually talked briefly with General Dallaire. I have the utmost respect for the man. He experienced a hell I could never imagine.

Maybe if he had actually bothered to save the 400,000 Rwandans he was assigned to protect from genocide he would have experienced less of a hell.

But he seemed to place blame more on the inertia of the international community than anything else. Annan ostensibly made an effort. I think singling him out is no more justified than singling out the U.S. for failing to act.

Well, except for the fact that a). There WERE UN troops there for the specific purpose of preventing the genocide, and b). Annan decided to do nothing. That's quite a bit different than doing nothing because you aren't there. I mean, if today a woman is raped in Chicago, I, being thousands of miles away, am not to blame for not stopping it. But if I am the local sergeant who gets a 911 call from her and still does nothing...

Do you have any evidence that he "buried his head in the sand" or do you have other proposed actions he could have taken?

Start with shooting those who go out to kill with machetes, and making clear you will continue to do so. That's what an army is FOR, after all.

The international community failed in Germany, failed in Croatia, failed in Cambodia, failed in Congo, failed in Iraq, failed in Rawanda, and is failing again in Darfur. No matter how many times we say "never again," we just don't seem to learn the lessons that would prevent the next genocide.

Ah, that's OK then. What's the point of blaming Annan for not stopping a genocide when he could? It's such a common failing, after all. It's not as if his job requires him to do something for peace and protection of innocents, after all.

 

[hgc]

Please remember, the UN is an organization of member states, especially in the question of military interventions. The real powers who had a chance to make the difference in Rwanda were Bill Clinton and Jacques Chirac. They screwed it up.

 

[Freakshow]

Please remember, the UN is an organization of member states, especially in the question of military interventions. The real powers who had a chance to make the difference in Rwanda were Bill Clinton and Jacques Chirac.

So...um...WHAT exactly does the UN do, again?

 

[Kopji]

There is no other purpose to all this but force Annan to resign because he pissed off the US over his comments on the war in Iraq. Live and learn, future UN scapegoats.

Annan's critics, particularly in the US Congress, will see the conclusions as further ammunition in their drive to force the UN chief to resign.

Several US congressional committees are probing the scandal, and some Republican lawmakers have threatened a cut in US dues to the world body if it does not fully cooperate with the investigations.

Republican Senator Norm Coleman late Tuesday called for Annan to resign and for the United Nations to prove its willingness to reform.
linky

 

[a_unique_person]

So...um...WHAT exactly does the UN do, again?

What it's member states want it to do, especially the security council.

 

[Freakshow]

What it's member states want it to do, especially the security council.

So what is it needed for? The member states can't do that themselves? The UN has no ability to enforce anything, except by using its member states' militaries. What is the UN accomplishing that couldn't be done without it?

 

[Ed]

So...um...WHAT exactly does the UN do, again?

Good point. The apologists on this thread indicate that the UN as an entity is basically at the mercy of the member states (the big ones at least) and the Secretary General is virtually powerless. So then why do we even have that ugly thing on the east side? Why not let the big boyds figure it out?

I do disagree that Anan could do nothing. He could take the moral high ground and howl. I guess that there are reasons why he is excused from even that. After all, if the members get pissed nothing will get done.....

 

[Freakshow]

Good point. The apologists on this thread indicate that the UN as an entity is basically at the mercy of the member states (the big ones at least) and the Secretary General is virtually powerless. So then why do we even have that ugly thing on the east side? Why not let the big boyds figure it out?

I'll answer, even though I was going to wait and drag it out of someone else...

Because it makes people FEEL better. If the US and the UK were to get together and say "Hey, let's use our might to do this", people get upset. But if the UN says "Hey, let's do this, and use the might of the US and the UK to enforce it", it is okay. It's the whole "I am a citizen of the world, and not a nation" thing. People feel differently about the exact same decisions being made, because of who makes them.

 

[Skeptic]

Do you have any evidence that he "buried his head in the sand" or do you have other proposed actions he could have taken?

Hmmmm, I'm thinking, I'm thinking.

What could soldiers, armed with the latest weapons, training, and equipment western technology and money could supply, have POSSIBLY done to stop a undisciplined mob armed with big knives from killing innocents?

Nah, surely, there's nothing useful they could have done. It was a lost cause.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'll answer, even though I was going to wait and drag it out of someone else...

Because it makes people FEEL better. If the US and the UK were to get together and say "Hey, let's use our might to do this", people get upset. But if the UN says "Hey, let's do this, and use the might of the US and the UK to enforce it", it is okay. It's the whole "I am a citizen of the world, and not a nation" thing. People feel differently about the exact same decisions being made, because of who makes them.

No, it is about legitimacy, a very import concept.

 

[Freakshow]

No, it is about legitimacy, a very import concept.

I disagree. I see no reason that the UN deciding something is more legitimate than a small set of countries getting together and making the same decision. Especially when it is those same countries that will have to do the enforcing.

 

[Ed]

No, it is about legitimacy, a very import concept.

What in the wide world of sports makes a decision that Liberia or Syria is part of legitimate?

 

[a_unique_person]

What in the wide world of sports makes a decision that Liberia or Syria is part of legitimate?

Are you trying to tell me that the decisions made by the US in Iraq were any better. Last I read, you were despairing at how badly the whole concept has been handled.