Kofi Annan/UN face D-day in tomorrows report

[transplant99]

Tuesday's report will focus on Kojo Annan, a former employee of Cotecna -- a Swiss firm that had a contract to certify the import of goods under the program.


The Financial Times reported last week that Kojo had been paid at least 300,000 dollars by the firm, twice the amount previously admitted, and that his father met with Cotecna officials twice before the firm won the contract.



Link

[Agamemnon]

I don't see how wrongdoing by Annan has anything to do with the UN's credibility as an organization.

If Cheney was caught in a compromising situation with his role as VP and his ties to Halliburton, would these mean that the US Government would be facing 'D-Day', and would there be questions about taking the whole thing apart as unworkable as a result?

Of course not. Cheney would be tarred and feathered, and a new VP would be selected.

I'm not sure how the actions of an individual or group of individuals somehow reflects poorly on the organization, rather than the administration.

I wonder who has more skeletons, Kofi Annan, or GW? Cheney? Martin? Chretien?

[transplant99]

Isn't the whole existance of the UN to be "scandal" free?

An independant body of diplomats that look out for the betterment of the entire planet, without leanings one way or another as to who benefits from any particular issue?

Then the very leader of this whole body appears to engage in completely inappropriate dealings withon behalf of his son, and that doesn't reflect on the entire orginization? How so? This is an outdated and useless group and is looking to go the way of its predecessor IMO. It's too bad as well as they do have some wings of the org. that do good work.

Don't have a clue what this has to do with Bush/Cheney and the US administration at all. They were elected and the people had a chance to remove them..and chose not to do so...unwisely IMO. Two completely different scenarios.

[Agamemnon]

Isn't the whole existance of the UN to be "scandal" free?

Are you suggesting the UN has an obligation to be more free of corruption than the US government? Than any national government? I don't see how 'scandals' are less approved of at the UN level than any other, that makes no sense to me.

An independant body of diplomats that look out for the betterment of the entire planet, without leanings one way or another as to who benefits from any particular issue?

I don't see how the body of diplomats is 'independent'. I also don't see how they 'look out for the betterment of the entire planet', thats not their mandate. Their mandate is to represent their country at a world-wide forum, not to hold hands and chant. That's the media/public perception, and its wrong.

Then the very leader of this whole body appears to engage in completely inappropriate dealings withon behalf of his son, and that doesn't reflect on the entire orginization? How so?

Again, I don't see how your logic works. You seem to be saying that Kofi Annan is beholden to a moral ideal and level that supercedes that of everyone else in the universe, including national leaders.

Again, if Cheney was found guilty of improprieties with the oil industry, would that mean the US bureaucracy is somehow faulted as a result? Of course not, it would be Cheney's indiscretion and Cheney would be the one punished. I don't see how anyone could look at his corruption and see that as a reason to tear down the establishement. That doesn't make sense.

This is an outdated and useless group and is looking to go the way of its predecessor IMO. It's too bad as well as they do have some wings of the org. that do good work.

Its good that its your opinion, because it certainly isn't shared by most (if not all) of the governments of the world. I think your view on the UN is distorted, and you seem to be holding them to a level of accountability unheard of in other national and transnational organizations. They're still human. They haven't claimed superhuman status (that I know of).

Don't have a clue what this has to do with Bush/Cheney and the US administration at all. They were elected and the people had a chance to remove them..and chose not to do so...unwisely IMO. Two completely different scenarios.

I brought that up as an example, a parallel scenario to give us a better frame of reference. I know you don't like to talk about this specific example, but thats your hangup.

Also, how do you think Kofi Annan got his position? Appointed himself? He was approved by the Security Council and ratified (elected) by the General Assembly. I don't see how the examples are as different as you say they are, clearly not for the reason you state they are.

[FlamesAddiction]

The U.N. existence is to be an institution where countries and nations from around the world can have a forum to discuss disputes and cooperate on innitiatives. It exists so all member countries can have a voice that is heard. It's not meant to be some all powerfull governing body, and is only as powerful as it's most powerful members allow it to be.

It "should" be scandal-free, as should EVERY aspect of every society. Unfortunately, it is still run by humans.

[Hack&Lube]

Kofi's brother or something lives around Alberta or something and has something to do with some oil company he runs in Calgary.

He was in legal trouble with something or other.
Could I get any more vague? Yep.
But it's an interesting link to us.