Yugoslavia, Rwanda massacres were avoidable, says Annan

AFP ^ | 27 January 2004

[Gefreiter]

Dunno if Sweden necessarily needs aircraft carriers or nuclear (ie, long-range) subs. Both are for extended power projetion, and I don't see to where Sweden would need to project.

But I agree that the UN, in its present form, is not effective. Consider the General Assembly, where every country on Earth has the same voice as every other. That's just plain silly, that Congo, for example, has equal voice with, say, Sweden, in the Gen Assembly.

Also consider that most of the world is composed of pisspot dictators or otherwise autocratic goverenments. In terms of government, much of the world has little in common with a democratic West. Recall one recent example, in the winter of 2002, when Iraqi representatives received a standing ovation in the General Assembly for continuing to defy UN resolutions concerning banned weapons programs, in effect enthusiastically applauding their own ineffectiveness!

The Security Council is also disconnected from reality. There is no reason for both Britain and France to be there; have a rotating single European seat. I'm borderline on whether Russia should be there today, but India should absolutely have a permanent seat.

But I recognize the neccessity and utility of international organizations. I agree with what several other Freepers have discussed, the idea that there should be a new organization, one that only admits countries with democratically elected governments.

[Darksheare]

And???
The UN is useless, Kofi Annon has spoken MANY HUNDREDS of times in RESPECT for dictators and mass murderers.
He even spoke lovingly of a form of torture where an oil filled tire is stuck around the neck of a tvictim and lit.
Said he loves the smell of it.

The UN sits by and lets atrocities occur.
And yes, there ARE better alternatives.
SOMEONE, anyone, to DO THE RIGHT THING.

[dfwgator]

Waiting for somebody (The US) to act unilaterally so they could condemn them.

Not to defend the UN, but Clinton and the Cleaning Lady basically told the UN not to do anything. It was an election year don'cha know? Besides all Clinton had to do was go over and stop in Rwanda for all of 45 minutes, apologize, and all would be well.

[dfwgator]

And Clinton and Albright are just as complicit as Annan in the 1994 Rwandan massacres.

And don't forget that pig Mitterand.

[antiRepublicrat]

This hypocrite has got to go! HE was the one in charge there, HE was the one who told his peacekeeping troops to sit around and do nothing and get killed, HE was the one who was supposed to get the UN to reinforce HIS command.

He sat by and did nothing, and now he's blaming everyone else. True, the international community did fail in Rwanda, but he was the point man for that failure.

[sheik yerbouty]

Anan is an imbecile. That's why he is becoming known as "Famous Anus".

[RobbyS]

The UN as constituted is pretty much useless. Europe should arm itself, but won't and deserves only one seat on the security council.

[Axenolith]

Why is it evil?

In some instances in Rwanda the UN troops were actually handing the victims over to the killers!

The UN is worthless and forces they field couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag. The UN spends to much of its time worrying about how they'll next run interference for some tin pot dictator against the US. Their organization is like having a mass of third graders run a school

[Travis McGee]

Where was the UN when these massacres were taking place???? Waiting for somebody (The US) to act unilaterally so they could condemn them.

Exactly. And Annon was complicit in the Rwanda genocide, he forbad the peacekeepers from destroying the Hutu govt armories when the genocide was building.

[Jack of all Trades]

The mind boggling thing to me is that Annan can even mention Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the same breath. The slaughter in Rwanda was roughly 100 time larger in scale. Even today, is there a greater concentration of bloody anarchy anywhere on this planet than in Africa?

IMHO the U.N. should give up its pretensions of global governance, and focus on direct aid. The U.N. has proven both by its actions and in-actions that it is unworthy of any real power. It is an evil body because, knowing the world situation, it still seeks to enrich itself through the acquisition of power, rather than seeking to benefit mankind. Let them refocus completely on providing food, water, medicine, and education and the U.N will be on the path to becoming a fundamentally good agency.

[kidd]

The UN in its current form does not work, but there is no better alternative

The United Nations cannot exist without the United States. It is too heavily reliant on its money, its military and its knowledge. However the United Nations has become intensely hostile towards the United States and its interests, in spite of itself.

For example, the true basis for the Iraq war is to protect the strength of United Nations resolutions, but oddly enough the United Nations is against it - simply because the United States is trying to protect itself from further terrorist attacks.

Other actions that are hostile to the United States include Kyoto, World Court, promotion of abortion, exclusion from certain committees, attempts at "one-world" governance that cut into our sovereignty, etc.

I view the UN as a hostile, unappreciative recipient of welfare. It must therefore be disbanded.

[exit82]

Yes--thank you.

Oink. Oink. Francois--considered yourself remembered.

[antiRepublicrat]

The UN bureaucracy is nothing but a bunch of strutting Marxist peacocks looking for their next free hand-out from the United States.

I saw a show a while back about how budgeting decisions are made, and it's frightening. They take some socialist from some obscure country and give him control over millions of dollars with no oversight.

We do need to stay in the UN though, but only because we have veto power.

[Adder]

"Where's a law firm when ya need one?"

John Edwards should be available shortly....