U.N. Watchers Warn Over Bush Win

IPS ^ | Nov 3, 2004 | Thalif Deen

[Tailgunner Joe]

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 3 (IPS) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was quick to congratulate U.S. President George W Bush on his re-election Wednesday but diplomats and U.N. watchers issued warnings about future U.S.-U.N. relations.

Annan, who irritated the White House recently by describing the U.S. invasion of Iraq as ''illegal,'' has little or no choice but to welcome four more years of a new Bush administration, according to U.N. diplomats and officials.

''If the United Nations is to survive as an institution, it has to learn to live with the United States,'' said an Asian diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Annan was his usual diplomatic self after the news was announced, conveying ''warm'' wishes to the U.S. president.

After congratulating Bush, the secretary-general said he is ''committed to continuing to work with President Bush and his administration on the whole range of issues facing the United Nations and the world.''

Since Annan is expected to finish his second five-year term as U.N. chief only by the end of December 2006, he will have to work with the new Bush team at least for the next two years.

Bush, whose new four-year term will end December 2008, will also play a key role in electing the next U.N. secretary-general, possibly from Asia.

A long serving U.N. official says Annan cannot afford to take a confrontational stand against Washington, ''because he will only be doing irreparable damage to the institution''.

''Either you cooperate with the White House -- or you just perish,'' he added.

The reaction was equally strong from U.S. political analysts, academics and U.N. activists.

''The Bush policies toward the United Nations are likely to remain similar -- viewing the United Nations as a significant tool when useful to Washington and as an irrelevant ritual otherwise,'' says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy.

''Likewise, we'll see Washington continue to use the rhetoric of 'multilateralism' when expedient, while taking unilateral action whenever convenient,'' Solomon told IPS.

Diplomats at the United Nations, he said, would be foolish to take Bush's claims seriously. "The United Nations should impede and oppose -- not assist or tacitly support -- policies from Washington that seek to extend empire," said Solomon, co-author of 'Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You'.

The Bush administration, which went to war in Iraq in March 2003 without U.N. authorisation, has also remained at odds with the United Nations over sending a large team of U.N. employees to organise elections in the occupied country in January 2005.

Annan has said he will not send U.N. staffers until and unless the security environment in Iraq shows signs of improvement.

''I think the United States is very eager to get the United Nations on board to provide some semblance of international credibility to these inevitably flawed 'elections under occupation','' says Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.

But clearly their commitment to getting the United Nations involved in the polls is limited, she added.

''We know from the (New York-based newspaper) 'Newsday' leak that it was Washington that rejected the offer of a large multilateral deployment of troops from a number of Muslim countries specifically designed to protect U.N. election workers, because the force would be under U.N., not U.S., command,'' said Bennis, author of 'Before and After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Sep. 11 Crisis'.

''That means (U.S. officials) were more concerned with maintaining Pentagon hegemony in Iraq than in creating a scenario under which the United Nations might go in. But it remains politically crucial for the United Nations to continue its refusal to return to Iraq under the terms of the U.S. occupation -- even if the official reason remains the lack of security,'' she told IPS.

A U.N. return to Iraq under those conditions would mean legitimating the U.S. occupation of that country -- and thereby delegitimising the United Nations itself, Bennis added.

According to Nasser Aruri, chancellor professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, ''There is no reason to assume that the Bush administration, which has ridiculed the United Nations as an institution whose 'time has passed', is likely to develop a sudden respect for the world body whose basic principles are at odds with the world view of the Bush administration."

The Bush government, he added, has effectively reduced the five permanent members of the Security Council, to just one -- the United States (the others being Britain, France, Russia and China).

Bennis predicted the Bush administration would continue with its "aggressive" foreign policy while totally disregarding the United Nations.

''The world will see a re-empowered American administration claiming a popular mandate, with a strengthened commitment to preventive war in Iraq, intensified support for Israel's occupation of Palestine, renewed military threats against other perceived 'enemies,' the abandonment of nuclear weapons accountability, the sidelining of the United Nations, and the consolidation of a law of empire to match the rejection of international law," she added.

[DaiHuy]

"Bush, whose new four-year term will end December 2008,"

I could be wrong, but doesn't his new four-year term end Jan 20th 2009?

[Militiaman7]

Well said!

[Colorado Doug]

''If the United Nations is to survive as an institution, it has to learn to live with the United States,''

The choice is clear. Either get along with us or fade to irrelevance and disappear. Personally, I like the second choice.

For me, this is a very important mandate. Preservation of United States sovereignty. Kerry would have sold us out and Clinton would be the Secretary General. [shudder]

[Doogle]

"Bush, whose new four-year term will end December 2008,"

I could be wrong, but doesn't his new four-year term end Jan 20th 2009?

lol....what do you want from a Muslim professor at a liberal college in Mass, smarts?


Doogle

[RedMonqey]

If the United Nations is to survive as an institution, it has to learn to live with the United States,''

Why l do I get a picture of a Giant tick sucking on an elephant in my head when I heard this statement?

[Army Air Corps]

To Kofi: I should give a sh*t because....

[woodb01]

If the United Nations is to survive as an institution, it has to learn to live with the United States,'' said an Asian diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

DID ANYONE ELSE PICK UP ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS? If the US pulls out of the U.N. it's DONE!!! GET U.S. OUT NOW!!!

[Shethink13]

''The Bush policies toward the United Nations are likely to remain similar -- viewing the United Nations as a significant tool when useful to Washington and as an irrelevant ritual otherwise,'' says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy.

I pick "irrelevant ritual". When has the UN ever been a significant tool? Unless we're using the term "tool" as a deragatory term - as in "what a tool!".

[dalereed]

It's time to revive the bumper stickers from the 70s.

Get the US out of the UN
Get the UN out of the US

[AnimalLover]

Ping

[rudypoot]

These UN diplomats are a bunch of pompous asses. The reason why the US didn't want muslim security forces for the UN workers is because Iraqi does not want foreign musilm troops. They have the gall to say that the US is losing credibility when it's the UN that is losing credibility with every passing day.

If the US pulls this Iraq election off with little or no help from the UN, it will underline it's complete and utter irrelevency. The US will have shown it has more capability, dicisiveness and, above all, more willingness to act on their principles than the corrupt UN.

[expatpat]

''Likewise, we'll see Washington continue to use the rhetoric of 'multilateralism' when expedient, while taking unilateral action whenever convenient,'' Solomon told IPS

How about:

we'll see Paris continue to use the rhetoric of 'multilateralism' when expedient, while taking unilateral action whenever convenient

[diane in IL]

Someone needs to introduce this writer to spell check.

[mhking]

''Either you cooperate with the White House -- or you just perish,'' he added.

You do not annoy the 800 pound gorilla in your living room.

Or to go one better, you don't step on Superman's cape.

[BikerTrash]

My two stage plan for future U.S./UN relations:

1. 24 hour notice.

2. Bulldozers.

[nothingnew]

''Either you cooperate with the White House -- or you just perish,'' he added.

Please..... PLEASE DON'T COOPERATE!!

FMCDH(BITS)

[backhoe]

My 2¢'s about the un?

American Policy Center on-line Declaration of Independence from the U.N.

As I recall, the un has one or more "contingency sites" located in other nations... let's banish them there--

Moreover:

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/679476/posts

U.N. Finally Forced to Probe Its Pedophilia Scandal
Newsmax.com ^ | Tuesday, May 7, 2002

"Imagine the screaming headlines and worldwide outrage if the Catholic Church or any other church allowed sexual abuse of children on such a massive scale. Could the media establishment's pro-U.N., anti-religious bias have anything to do with the stunning discrepancy? "

Child sex book given out at U.N. summit

UN cash for accused Nazi (Waldheim got 4,1 million)

'War Crimes' Fear For British Troops. Well, they wanted the World Court Didn't They?

Click this picture & goto "last" for the latest:

massive sexual abuse of children in Africa,

[Twinkie]

Uncle Sucker has bankrolled every "international"
thing to come along, without so much as a complaint.
The U.N. is like the kept mistress who complains that
her Mercedes isn't big enough and cuckolds her lover
with other men.

[oldtimer]

BUMP

[oldtimer]

How about Alan Keyes for the new Secretary General!