NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Chief Warns of Global War Over Religion, Says Only UN can Solve World's Problems

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, September 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Tuesday, Secretary General Kofi Annan delivered his final address to the United Nations General Assembly before he retires at the end of the year. During the speech, which comes on the heels of the media-generated controversy regarding Pope Benedict XVI’s quoting of a text on Islam, Annan said, “insensitivity towards other people’s beliefs or sacred symbols –- intentional or otherwise -- is seized upon by those who seem eager to foment a new war of religion on a global scale.”

“Moreover, this climate of fear and suspicion is constantly refuelled by the violence in the Middle East”, he said, adding: “We might like to think of the Arab-Israeli conflict as just one regional conflict amongst many. But it is not. No other conflict carries such a powerful symbolic and emotional charge among people far removed from the battlefield.”

Annan sees the United Nations as the only solution to the world’s woes. “Yes, I remain convinced that the only answer to this divided world must be a truly United Nations”, he said.

Climate change, HIV/AIDS, fair trade, migration, human rights -– “all these issues, and many more, bring us back to that point”, he said, adding: “addressing each is indispensable for each of us in our village, in our neighbourhood, and in our country. Yet each has acquired a global dimension that can only be reached by global action, agreed and coordinated through this most universal of institutions”.

“All must play their part in a true multilateral world order, with a renewed, dynamic United Nations at its centre”, he said.

See the press release on the speech:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10500.doc.htm

Anyone else glad that he is leaving at the end of the year? I'm hoping that whoever takes his post will be able to actually try to unify the world, however, im not going to be naive anymore, and assume that world unification will never occur, especially because of that one reason mr. annan gave “insensitivity towards other people’s beliefs or sacred symbols –- intentional or otherwise -- is seized upon by those who seem eager to foment a new war of religion on a global scale" So should we perhaps...ban religion then? No, I don't think so, although I believe thats the goal of the UN.

UN is worthless, Kofi was making it even worse I think. Glad he's leaving.

Problem is, the poor sod was stuck with a system with five massive spanners in the works (namely the vetos).

The UN is inherently flawed, the concept is good (assuming everyone considers an international body aimed at promoting peace and unity a good thing...) but between the vetos and lack of it's own military force it's a toothless tiger with it's legs and balls chained to the ground.

Problem is, the poor sod was stuck with a system with five massive spanners in the works (namely the vetos).

The UN is inherently flawed, the concept is good (assuming everyone considers an international body aimed at promoting peace and unity a good thing...) but between the vetos and lack of it's own military force it's a toothless tiger with it's legs and balls chained to the ground.

How about the fact that nobody can agree on what peace is? I'm sure most middle eastern nations would back military intervention against Israel in the name of "peace", and most wouldn't back military intervention against the genocidal Sudanese in the name of peace.

The world is not civilized. The UN is like the cafeteria of a massive prison populated by nations instead of people. Everyone's looking out for himself and his allies and is out to screw everyone else.

I agree with what you're saying. The fact is, the UN can be useful in many ways such as providing humanitarian aid, world education, human rights and the like.

What it cannot do effectively is peacekeeping because of all the rules like the veto power which tie it down. When you have UN peacekeepers in African countries who cannot legally interfere even if civilians are being raped and butchered 10 feet in front of them, the system obviously does not work

For UN troops to effectively peacekeep, there must already be a peace in place going in. Putting them in wartorn countries will only endanger their lives, as we can see from what happened to the four who were killed in Lebanon.

Anyone else glad that he is leaving at the end of the year? I'm hoping that whoever takes his post will be able to actually try to unify the world, however, im not going to be naive anymore, and assume that world unification will never occur, especially because of that one reason mr. annan gave “insensitivity towards other people’s beliefs or sacred symbols –- intentional or otherwise -- is seized upon by those who seem eager to foment a new war of religion on a global scale" So should we perhaps...ban religion then? No, I don't think so, although I believe thats the goal of the UN.

I wont miss him. Maybe they'll get someone that will actually confront and deal with the slaughter in the Sudan.

He did accomplish a few things like conceal details of the oil for food bribes and kickbacks as well as the UN "peacekeeper's" violation of human rights of refugees in the Congo.

UN is worthless, Kofi was making it even worse I think. Glad he's leaving.

and dont forget his son Kojo Annan, a very honest paid consultant. :rolleyes:

The system was broken before he came along. It was total shit when he came into power. Don't blame him for how crappy the UN is, blame the fact that 5 nations have unchecked veto powers.

The system was broken before he came along. It was total shit when he came into power. Don't blame him for how crappy the UN is, blame the fact that 5 nations have unchecked veto powers.

So oil for food wasn't his fault? I do agree that there are some major problems, such as unchecked veto powers, but I think that Kofi was not suited for that job.

The system was broken before he came along. It was total shit when he came into power. Don't blame him for how crappy the UN is, blame the fact that 5 nations have unchecked veto powers.

In an assembly where representatives of brutal, repressive regimes are common I'm glad a group of somewhat civilized nations do have veto power.

In an assembly where representatives of brutal, repressive regimes are common I'm glad a group of somewhat civilized nations do have veto power.
Even if they are civil, one of the biggest violaters of human rights has a veto power, and that isn't really a good thing.

Even if they are civil, one of the biggest violaters of human rights has a veto power, and that isn't really a good thing.

Yeah, and a lot to lose trade-wise. They're looking to integrate fully into the global economy and hopefully sooner or later it's going to cost them the right to imprison people because of their politics and religion and execute prisoners to sell their organs for transplant.

Yeah, and a lot to lose trade-wise. They're looking to integrate fully into the global economy and hopefully sooner or later it's going to cost them the right to imprison people because of their politics and religion and execute prisoners to sell their organs for transplant.
Of course, they COULD just give up the veto power and let a nation like... Japan sit on the council, that way there is still an Oriental country in the Security Council, but it doesn't have an atrocious human rights record on par with so many other nations.

Of course, they COULD just give up the veto power and let a nation like... Japan sit on the council, that way there is still an Oriental country in the Security Council, but it doesn't have an atrocious human rights record on par with so many other nations.

I know you know that will never happen. What nation would give up it's veto? Considering the history between China and Japan, even if by some miracle the Chinese gave up the veto they wouldn't stand for Japan getting it. In their eyes the only thing worse would be for Taiwan to be recognized as an independent nation and given a security council position with veto power.

I know you know that will never happen. What nation would give up it's veto? Considering the history between China and Japan, even if by some miracle the Chinese gave up the veto they wouldn't stand for Japan getting it. In their eyes the only thing worse would be for Taiwan to be recognized as an independent nation and given a security council position with veto power.
Or...

We could just get rid of the veto power all together and have the fifteen members as we do now, but, they are all voted in by the General Assembly on certain conditions, such as a good human rights record.

The UN was formed to prevent war from erupting between major powers, and it has been largely successful....

It took some other secondary functions allong the way that have proven difficult due to its composure, that was mainly intended to provide for the main goal of preventing major power war.

Now I'm not saying that the next UN chief should be an American, but IF it had to be an American, I think there's only one American the world would trust enough to accept: Bill Clinton.

Okay, two: David Hasselhoff. :D

Now I'm not saying that the next UN chief should be an American, but IF it had to be an American, I think there's only one American the world would trust enough to accept: Bill Clinton.

Okay, two: David Hasselhoff. :D

I would cream my pants if we could make Bubba ruler of the world.

To me, whether or not his dire predictions are true, the speech seems to be a try at magnifying fears and concerns in order to grab a little more power for the United Nations. He probably means well enough by it I supose.

But without veto power the UN might become just like the nationstates UN, which has probably outlawed eating chocolate in public by now.

That said, I think removing veto power would give the Americans a lot more power, because they would essentially have the final veto by refusing to pay for whatever program is being voted on or to send troops to where ever the UN wants them. Unless, of course some other nation decides to contribute significantly...;)

So oil for food wasn't his fault?
Fault? What's wrong with that practice? Its quite sound. It only falls down due to corrupt officials which are prevalent through all bureaucracies.

Do I blame him for the corruption? No. I blame those who were/are corrupt.


and dont forget his son Kojo Annan, a very honest paid consultant.
He is not his son and should not be held accountable for someone elses shortcomings or failings- whether that be a family relative or the head of a foreign government.

I do agree that there are some major problems, such as unchecked veto powers, but I think that Kofi was not suited for that job.
And why not? Because he became a little critical of United States policy in the last few years? He was right to do so.

His career deemed him experienced enough and he was voted in by his peers.
Mr Annan studied in Kumasi, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Geneva before joining the UN in 1962 as an administrative and budget officer with the World Health Organization.

Since then, he has served with the UN Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, the UN Emergency Force in Ismailia; the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva, and at the UN Headquarters in New York.

He became secretary general in 1997 after the US had firmly declared its intention to veto a second term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

i believe the main flaw of the UN is in the basic system itself. the UN consists of representatives of the governments in this world, but governments are only special interest groups enforced by the majority of their people. since governments have their own agendas (just look at the current bush administration), they will act upon them in the UN, where they are free to do so without consulting their people.
this is how the UN and its officials can be so corrupt. it doesn't have true power, because the power doesn't lie in governments, it resides with the people.

The UN was formed to prevent war from erupting between major powers, and it has been largely successful....


Actually, deterrence theory, arms control, mutually assured destruction, and NATO probably had far more to do with it. The conflict, as well as the measures described in the previous sentence, existed between the United States and Soviet Union more or less exclusively. The UN had little to nothing to do with it. The Cuban Missle Crisis, and the nuclear war that nearly resulted, is the best example of the UN's failure. With a genuine and successful great power concert, as the UN was/is supposed to be, such an event would never have happened.

The Cuban Missle Crisis, and the nuclear war that nearly resulted, is the best example of the UN's failure.
It's unfair to slam the UN for it's "inaction" during the Cold War. The main decision making body was split between the two powers involved and their veto's. As an organisation, it had its hands tied. Blame the existence of the veto system and the person who suggested it....


With a genuine and successful great power concert, as the UN was/is supposed to be, such an event would never have happened.

That's a very big assumption. I don't know what you're really basing that on except maybe 19th century international relations.

It's unfair to slam the UN for it's "inaction" during the Cold War. The main decision making body was split between the two powers involved and their veto's. As an organisation, it had its hands tied. Blame the existence of the veto system and the person who suggested it....


But the veto power exemplifies the entire point and purpose of the UN. People seem to be under the impression that the purpose of the UN is equitable world unity. Completely false. The purpose of the UN was to institute a great power concert (a.k.a The Security Council) consisting of rule by the great powers in their associated spheres of influence (United States in North and South America; UK and France in Middle East; China in Asia; Russia in Eastern Europe). Of course, such a set up assumes that the great powers in question are able to successfully resolve their conflicts in a cooperative manner. And, of course, as the Cold War and associated "hot" moments demonstrate, such was not the case in reality; the great power concert is a multipolar design, while reality reflected a bipolar design.

The veto power was not the problem. The problem was trying to operate a multipolar organization in a bipolar world. The current problem is trying to operate a multipolar organization in a unipolar world.

Right now the most significant question is how the EU and an increasingly powerful China will change things. Especially as concerns the Taiwan and North Korea issues. The United States is militarily overstretched as it is. If its not careful, a return to at least a bipolar world is possible.

It's unfair to slam the UN for it's "inaction" during the Cold War. The main decision making body was split between the two powers involved and their veto's. As an organisation, it had its hands tied. Blame the existence of the veto system and the person who suggested it....




That's a very big assumption. I don't know what you're really basing that on except maybe 19th century international relations.

Actually, by allowing those nations their vetoes and permanent status, those members remained in the United Nations. Without the assurace of having that kind of power, it's doubtful that powerful nations like the United States, Great Britain or the Soviet Union would have remained in the UN. Keeping all the major powers involved and interested legitimizes the UN. Keeps them talking to eachother. ANd that is no bad thing. *nod*

If there is any major flaw in this, it is the growing power that smaller nations have lately to influence world opinion and events.

If there is any major flaw in this, it is the growing power that smaller nations have lately to influence world opinion and events.


It's a flaw to the extent that a system like the UN is supposed to operate like an oligopoly. Unfortunately, two of the great powers were more interesting in an exclusive monopoly. The current problem with the UN is that it thinks international politics is run as an oligopoly, while the United States knows damn well that its actually a hegemonic monopoly

Actually, deterrence theory, arms control, mutually assured destruction, and NATO probably had far more to do with it. The conflict, as well as the measures described in the previous sentence, existed between the United States and Soviet Union more or less exclusively. The UN had little to nothing to do with it. The Cuban Missle Crisis, and the nuclear war that nearly resulted, is the best example of the UN's failure. With a genuine and successful great power concert, as the UN was/is supposed to be, such an event would never have happened.

You are right,

still the main limits (e.g. Veto power) of the UN are intended not to escalate conflicts. And as a platform, or forum it does have some use in reducing conflict. We simply shoul'd not expect too much from this organisation: it is simply a tool that helps the contact between states on important issues

You are right,

still the main limits (e.g. Veto power) of the UN are intended not to escalate conflicts.


But like I've been saying, this only works so long as the great powers are willing to cooperate. As soon as they figure they have more to gain doing otherwise...

But the veto power exemplifies the entire point and purpose of the UN. People seem to be under the impression that the purpose of the UN is equitable world unity. Completely false. The purpose of the UN was to institute a great power concert (a.k.a The Security Council) consisting of rule by the great powers in their associated spheres of influence (United States in North and South America; UK and France in Middle East; China in Asia; Russia in Eastern Europe). Of course, such a set up assumes that the great powers in question are able to successfully resolve their conflicts in a cooperative manner. And, of course, as the Cold War and associated "hot" moments demonstrate, such was not the case in reality; the great power concert is a multipolar design, while reality reflected a bipolar design.

The veto power was not the problem. The problem was trying to operate a multipolar organization in a bipolar world. The current problem is trying to operate a multipolar organization in a unipolar world.

Right now the most significant question is how the EU and an increasingly powerful China will change things. Especially as concerns the Taiwan and North Korea issues. The United States is militarily overstretched as it is. If its not careful, a return to at least a bipolar world is possible.

True,
luckily these powers are already represented in as permanent members... The main test for the UN will be the transfer of hegemony, if that happens without a world war, due to the structure of the UN we (Human race) are very lucky indeed.

He is not his son and should not be held accountable for someone elses shortcomings or failings- whether that be a family relative or the head of a foreign government.




You'd be correct if Kofi wasnt completely responsible for his son's actions, due to his position at the UN, not as his father. "shortcomings or failings" ?
It was a little more than careless oversights.

But like I've been saying, this only works so long as the great powers are willing to cooperate. As soon as they figure they have more to gain doing otherwise...
Perhaps they will not cooperate, but that is not the point. They rather need to be willing not to war. They already know the costs of war, but sometimes they escalate because they feel that their survival is threatened by the other party due to a lack of information.

The lack of trust, due to the lack of information can make war more likely, organisations like the UN can increase information to all players, thereby making war less likely...

UN is shit, just another bad excuse for the us of A.

The lack of trust, due to the lack of information can make war more likely, organisations like the UN can increase information to all players, thereby making war less likely...

The UN cannot do this job if the great powers refuse to cooperate in the first place, due to the security dillema. Witness the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, near constant warfare in Africa and the Middle East, etc. True, significant world/nuclear powers haven't been engaged in [i]direct[i] warfare since WWII. However, there is anything but world peace.

The UN cannot do this job if the great powers refuse to cooperate in the first place, due to the security dillema. Witness the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, near constant warfare in Africa and the Middle East, etc. True, significant world/nuclear powers haven't been engaged in [i]direct[i] warfare since WWII. However, there is anything but world peace.

I agree with almost everything you say, but i do not agree that the UN cannot do its job, for the UN reduces the transaction costs of cooperation and information sharing.

The primary flaw of the UN is that it doesn't have any reason to exist. Major international alliances are only formed in the short term as a counter to an equally powerful alliance that has formed.
Once you start welcoming one and all to come together for an indefinite period of time to achieve a goal that nobody can agree on, you get a corrupt and sprawling mass that serves only to waste money and distract people from important issues.

Or...

We could just get rid of the veto power all together and have the fifteen members as we do now, but, they are all voted in by the General Assembly on certain conditions, such as a good human rights record.

When nations like Iran and Sudan sit on the UN human rights committee?

When nations like Iran and Sudan sit on the UN human rights committee?

African States: Algeria, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Zambia.

Asian States: Bahrain, Bangladesh, People's Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Sri Lanka.

No mention of Iran or Sudan. Nice try though.

snip


Then, true. The UN had only an area of operations in Third World areas, despite it being the "playground" of the First and Second World. Even then it was limited. It was allowed do what the two allowed it to do.

I would say it is trying to assert itself in the post-Cold War era that it is no longer being torn in two directions by the two powers. I do not blame the institution for its actions (or lack thereof) in the CMC. Inspections by the 'neutral' entity on Cuba were a key element of the negotiations- its interaction was essentail in keeping both sides happy.

The current problem with the UN is that it thinks international politics is run as an oligopoly,
I see nothing wrong in trying to achieve that. Trying to keep a hegemonical system that is beneficial to purely the current hegemony will only result in bad things happening in the future when China etc come into their own. I'd rather they didn't turn around in the future and say "They were allowed ignore/use it for it's own benefit... now we are too."

Then we may be, as the saying goes, fucked.

African States: Algeria, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Zambia.

Asian States: Bahrain, Bangladesh, People's Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Sri Lanka.

No mention of Iran or Sudan. Nice try though.

My bad. They have in the past.

Iran 1947-1949 1957-1959 1967-1980 1992-1994

Sudan 1993-1995 1998-2000

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm#2004

I'm going to quote Stalin on this one, but in the context of the UN.

"How many divisions does the Pope command?"

Substitute Pope for Secretary-General and you'll see the real extent of UN's power.

I think what killed the UN is the symbolic destruction of its authority by the US. The USA showed the world the Toothless tiger that was the UN. Realistically, the real problem is the fact that the UN has no army, but if it did we would have a whole host of new problems. Better would be a UN with no actual army, whose authority the world respected. That is just impossible now. If Iran had attempted to get approval to invade Iraq over false suspicions of WMD, had been rejected after a weapons inspection, and invaded anyway, they would be locked down within a week. The USA affirmed that the UN is just a giant metaphor of imperialistic control over the underdeveloped world. This isn't neccesarily a bad thing, but it certainly isn't fair or honest.

Anyone else glad that he is leaving at the end of the year? I'm hoping that whoever takes his post will be able to actually try to unify the world, however, im not going to be naive anymore, and assume that world unification will never occur, especially because of that one reason mr. annan gave “insensitivity towards other people’s beliefs or sacred symbols –- intentional or otherwise -- is seized upon by those who seem eager to foment a new war of religion on a global scale" So should we perhaps...ban religion then? No, I don't think so, although I believe thats the goal of the UN.

Annan said, “insensitivity towards other people’s beliefs or sacred symbols –- intentional or otherwise -- is seized upon by those who seem eager to foment a new war of religion on a global scale.”

Being "sensitive" is a frackking two way street. If the frackking Muslims want everyone to be "sensitive" to their frackking religion, let them practice what tihey frackking preach!

Annan said, “insensitivity towards other people’s beliefs or sacred symbols –- intentional or otherwise -- is seized upon by those who seem eager to foment a new war of religion on a global scale.”

Being "sensitive" is a frackking two way street. If the frackking Muslims want everyone to be "sensitive" to their frackking religion, let them practice what tihey frackking preach!
Hey Eut, haven't seen you for a while. I thought you died of old age or something. How many years do you think you have left in you? You should really set up some kind of time notice, so if you don't do something once a week it will send some kind of notification to somebody on the forums, that way we will know for sure when you have died. Anyhow, good to see you are still pottering around. On topic I would have to agree with you, but note that pretty well every other religion is just as hypocritical. As such, I don't think Islam should recieve any extra attention for it.

I always find it amusing how some people assume "The Muslims" are some kind of phantom one-minded collective. Yes, some people got all angry and rioty, but that's to be expected from economic backwaters, they're dirt-poor, ill-eduacted and fed a mountain of propaganda via their "glorious" governments about how fantastic their country is and how "evil" the Christians and Jews are. To be honest, I'm always surprised and how small these riots are. The media loves to make them into big events because they feed on populist violence and misery, it's how they make a profit. In reality, most muslims are just sitting at home going "So what?"

The exact same thing was going on during the middle ages with Christainity, but not EVERY Christian was an intolerant bigot, and neither are EVERY Muslim uppity assholes. Yes there are some brainwashed morons amongst them, and yes this should be dealt with, but it's not a cause for extremist rhetoric about how "The Muslims" are the root of all the world's problems.

"We are the Muslims, prepare to be assimilated." :p