Annan: Iraq veto, not end of UN

Agence France-Presse ^ | March 11, 2003

[Indy Pendance]

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said any veto in the Security Council of a second resolution on Iraq would not spell the end of the world body, the Dutch news agency ANP reported.

"A veto is not good for unity but there have been precedents," it quoted him as saying after a meeting with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende.

"The United Nations will remain as important as it is now."

[epluribus_2]

"The United Nations will remain as important as it is now."

Says it all...

[Thane_Banquo]

"The United Nations will remain as important as it is now."

Not if we decide to take our money elsewhere.

[mattdono]

Where is the "I'm still relevant" alert?

Buh-bye...

[TheBigB]

"The United Nations will remain as important as it is now."

Some jokes don't even need a punch line...

[Let's Roll]

"The United Nations will remain as important as it is now."

Since it's irrelevant, self-serving and obstructionist now, you can't really disagree. He obviously has no idea how unpopular the UN is with a whole bunch of people in this country.

[geedee]

Wanna bet, Kofi? The bookies have the odds 96-1 against.

[cloud8]

"The United Nations will remain as important as it is now."

That's a typo. He meant "impotent."

[legman]

Kofi may know something we don't know. Remember that "Slick Willie" has his eye on being President of the World.

[Paraclete]

I can't help but notice the shock of H. Kissinger at how this has unfolded. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he probably has as good a grasp of the history of diplomacy as anyone.

There are major shifts taking place. Let there be no doubt, the world's view of the effectiveness of the UN is taking a major hit. And most importantly, the people of the US will come to a greater conviction that dealing through the UN is more problematic than beneficial.

Whether the world wants to accept it or not, the UN is completely impotent without the US.

[DB]

Well much of the world is currently seeing the UN as being very effective. Very effective at stopping US action.

That needs to change.

[YOMO]

WANNA BET??????
WE WILL NOT FORGET.
Let the French fund your favorite programs.
Let them eat Cake.

[InspiredPath1]

The US and UK have often referenced the failure of the "League of Nations" to stop WW II. The league could have acted, and possibly avoided Italy's war on Abyssinia, and Hitlers march throughout Europe.

I read an op-ed this morning making a similar analogy.

However, this op-ed turned our argument against us. In this op-ed the part of Mussolini is being played by George W. Bush and the helpless role of Abyssinia is being played by Iraq. Regrettably this is how some in the rest of the world see this episode.

What can be done about this? How has this happened? Is Bush hated so much, or is it all Americans? In my opinion, this situation shows not the power of the US, but the power of the media to twist facts and oppose US policies. Does anyone else agree?

Directly after 09/11 the US was asked to determine the "root cause" of arab hatred toward the US. Predominant in these arguments was the theory that the US support of dictators in the MidEast had to have some efect. When we seek to provide a chance for democratic reform in this region we are also vilified. Why do we bother?

[cloud8]

"Kofi may know something we don't know. Remember that "Slick Willie" has his eye on being President of the World."

clinton has been maintaining a high profile of late, but hopefully he is only flailing at his own irrelevance..."There's gonna be a war in Iraq, b-but what about ME!" Kofi's term isn't up till 2007--it's a 5-year gig and he was re-annointed in 2002. Until then the schlickmeister will have to seek out other venues for adulation and control.

[cloud8]

"The US and UK have often referenced the failure of the "League of Nations" to stop WW II."

It's a clear analogy, and it may appeal to those who think the UN should be strong, but it was the appeasement policy of the Neville Chamberlaine types that allowed Hitler to roll through Europe.

"the part of Mussolini is being played by George W. Bush and the helpless role of Abyssinia is being played by Iraq. Regrettably this is how some in the rest of the world see this episode."

Did an American write this? I hope not. Did Haile Salassie gas his own people, invade his neighbor, accumulate weapons of mass destruction, threaten the stability of his region, support an international terrorist network? Mussolini indeed.

"Is Bush hated so much, or is it all Americans? In my opinion, this situation shows not the power of the US, but the power of the media to twist facts and oppose US policies. Does anyone else agree?"

Oh I think they hate all Americans, with W in particular viewed as a kind of slow-witted cowboy. It's tempting to let action speak louder than words, with the attitude of, Hey, we're the superpower, so get over it. What President Bush needs to do is to keep restating his case until the rest of the world--and the media--finally gets it. Some will, still more after we've liberated Iraq like we said we will, the French...never.

[bert]

....I can't help but notice the shock of H. Kissinger....

How about a few more words on this subject. What did Henry say? I missed them.

[Paraclete]

I've seen Kissinger twice now, last on Hardball last night. He sees the French, Russian, and German positions as totally shortsighted. He more or less admitted that he has miscalculated their response, since it makes no sense.

Both times I was struck by his sense of consternation about what is happening.

If Western democracies cannot ally on a threat the US determines as fundamental to its security, something is wrong.

BTW, say what you want about Cris Matthews, he does draw some provacative responses from his guests.