I like the guy, he really is doing his best, but without any real power, he's just a good willed office decoration.

___________________
1+1=10

I like him too, but I'd hate to see a "world president." I voted no.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Some of the reasons why I think Kofi Annan and the UN is largely ineffective:

The recent events in Iraq have brought the United Nations into the spotlight more than ever before. However, if we look back at previous failures, we should not be surprised by the current display of ineffectiveness. The United Nations did little to stop the genocide in Cambodia or the actions of China in Tieneman Square. The genocide in Rwanda was ruthlessly carried out under the nose of the United Nations. In fact, Kofi Annan was the head of U.N. peacekeeping at the time and did nothing. A cable sent to Annan in January 1994 advising of the likelihood of a campaign of genocide in Rwanda got a response advising that the United Nations should "avoid entering into a course of action that might lead to the use of force and unanticipated repercussions." The use of force, at least by the U.N., was avoided and there were no "unanticipated repercussions." There were, however, the anticipated repercussions of a systematic campaign of murder and terror in which an estimated 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda. More recently, the civil war in the Congo has resulted in claims just last month of cannibalism, rape, torture and kidnapping by the rebel forces, apparently supported by Uganda. Estimates are that approximately 2 million people have died in this fighting since 1998. Uganda and the Congo are both member nations of the U.N. But Kofi Annan, rather than proposing swift action against clear and widespread atrocities, is reserving his harshest criticism for the United States.

And now the much-celebrated International Tribunal for Rwanda has become yet another UN bureaucratic disaster. Repeated UN investigations have found widespread mismanagement, wastage, incompetence, and corruption. The Tribunal has prosecuted a fraction of the Rwandan genocide suspects it holds in custody. It has even been criticized by its own Appeal Court of prosecutorial incompetence and failing to observe elementary due process considerations. Sadly, the Tribunal, which should have brought justice to the region, has instead become another multi-million dollar UN boondoggle. Srebrenica, a name now associated with one of the worst crimes in Europe since WWII or as Judge Riad of the ICTY described it, ``..... a place where thousands of men were executed, hundreds buried alive, men and women mutilated and slaughtered, children killed before their mother's eyes, and a grandfather was forced to eat the liver of his own grandson.'' These are truly scenes from hell written on the darkest pages of human history. The UN created a safe haven in Srebrenica and encouraged civilians to enter en masse so as to be under UN military protection. Only one condition applied--entry into the UN safe haven required Muslim fighters to surrender their weapons. This they did, hoping that if ever the need arose they would get them back. They were to be sorely disappointed on that score.


When it became apparent that General Mladic was separating the men from the women and then killing them in the nearby fields, the Dutch UN troops began pleading for UN military support. But, just like Rwanda, the UN leadership once again became paralyzed and failed. They dithered over air strikes, they refused to send in troops to help the beleaguered Dutch and in the end, just as with Rwanda, the UN withdrew their troops. This permitted General Mladic to remove an estimated 5,000-8,000 Muslims from in and around the UN compound in Potocari and slaughter them.


To this day the United Nations and no UN official has ever been held criminally or civilly liable, let alone even publicly admonished, for their massive failures in Srebrenica. All the families of the thousands of victims can do now is pick up the pieces of their broken families and attempt to restart their lives.

East Timor. In late August 1999, the UN and now Secretary General Annan, called for elections on the small island country of East Timor despite disturbing evidence that hard line elements in the Indonesian military were preparing to cause wide spread public disorder so as to disrupt the elections. The UN failed to provide adequate protection for the civilian population. Dili was burnt to the ground and East Timor was engulfed in violence. After weeks of killing and millions of dollars of damage, the Australian government sent in ground troops to restore order to East Timor; but by then, it was too late to save East Timor from UN bungling.


Sierra Leone. So bad was the UN's conduct in Sierra Leone in June 2000 that their long time supporter and friend, Medicins Sans Frontieres, felt compelled to speak out and complain. MSF complained bitterly that the UN troops fled a RUF attack on the Sierra Leonean town of Kabala.


In so doing MSF said that the UN had failed its mandate to protect civilian populations, many of whom were sick women and malnourished children in the MSF hospital.


Cambodia. There is now mounting evidence that UN Peacekeeping troops actually caused an explosion of AIDS in Cambodia in 1992. In January of last year Richard Holbrooke, the then US Ambassador to the UN, launched an unprecedented attack upon the UN during his last UTN address saying ``..... it would be the cruelest of ironies if people who had come to end war ..... were spreading the most deadly of diseases ..... it will kill more people and undermine more societies than even the most critical conflicts we discuss here.'' And despite Ambassador Holbrooke's warnings there are concerns that right now in East Timor UN staff could be causing yet another AIDS epidemic. Some things just never seem to change.

In its current state, the UN is ineffective. But as this poll reffered to the president of the world rather than the current UN leader, I think the question was rather whether you'd want the UN to have any real power over other countries, and whether you'd want Koffi Annan to be encharge with that power.

___________________
1+1=10

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAAHaha

Koffi Annan as World President, the day that happens the world deserves what they get.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I like him too, but I'd hate to see a "world president." I voted no.

Why are you against the idea of a world president?

I wanna know why the hell should someone be President of the WORLD????

Last edited by Cracka-X on Apr-18-2003 at 04:02

I'm gonna take this thread as a joke. However, if its serious, my vote is definately against Kofi and the entire "world president" idea. A "world president" simply could not cater to the needs of individuals on the local level. In addition, what kind of powers would a "world president" have? A smart benevolent man could easily be swayed to abuse his or her powers. Its just a horrible idea on the whole.

I don't see what would be wrong with a world president. It's better than having the world filled with about 200 quarrelling countries. As for your points against it, first of all, if there are countries with over a billion people which are quite able to take care of their individuals at a local level, I don't see why it would be impossible to do so with the whole world. Your second point about abusing powers can easily be avoided by having a good legal system.

___________________
1+1=10

You're right, an Earth Empire wouldn't be a bad idea.

WTF you jivin'? SO someone from Africa should be making decissions for ppl in Alaska and China or just bout anywhere where he has never been or has no experience in dealing with? Shit, we'd be one big huge planet of Socialism if Koffi were the president.

the interactions between countries in the world at the international level will always been anarchic, relying on way to many factors to control. especially by one person.

plus while presidents often make important decisions, they are largely figureheads and ambassadors. what other planets does the earth deal with that require Kofi to make dealings?

no|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'