NationStates Jolt Archive

I haven't seen a thread on this yet, so...

Kofi Annan has just made his final speech as Secretary General of the UN. He's praised the example Truman once showed, and has called on the US today to remain "true to its principles".


In a striking speech Monday, Annan [...] implied Bush administration policies had harmed his country's reputation as a global human rights leader and said he prayed for "farsighted American leadership."
Annan chose the symbolic venue of the Independence, Missouri, library of US ex-president Harry S Truman, whom he lionized for his support of the early United Nations, to raise contrasts with recent US policies which have sparked frequent, fierce clashes with the world body.


Full article here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20061211-UN-ANNAN-CLOSING-SPEECH.html).

The full text of his speech can be read here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6170089.stm).

So have a lot of Americans. We're working on it.

Good for kofi.

Annan points to sky. Overheard to say, "Blue."

Kofi(the pot) calling the kettle black I see. Funny how he says the US needs better leadership. Would say the exact same thing for the UN. Hopefully this new guy can do a better job. Maybe cut down on some of the scandals.

Kofi(the pot) calling the kettle black I see. Funny how he says the US needs better leadership. Would say the exact same thing for the UN. Hopefully this new guy can do a better job. Maybe cut down on some of the scandals.

Even for someone like me, that's a lot to hope for there, chief.

Annan points to sky. Overheard to say, "Blue."

<3

Even for someone like me, that's a lot to hope for there, chief.

Yes I guess I am getting a bit over optimistic.

He does realize, of course, how badly people thought of Truman when he left office, doesn't he?

Well thanks for the advice Kofi. It's quite good advice, but I wouldn't put much faith in our Republican leadership to heed it.

When the UN has real leadership and actually puts UN policies into effect, its members can talk to America about leadership. Leadership is more than having certain ideals - it requires action.

When the UN has real leadership and actually puts UN policies into effect, its members can talk to America about leadership. Leadership is more than having certain ideals - it requires action.

You mean immediate military action against Israel?

The UN is not a governing body. It has no real authority. It is an ambassadors club.

He can call for leadership changes till the cows come home, he's got no authority to do anything.

Well thanks for the advice Kofi. It's quite good advice, but I wouldn't put much faith in our Republican leadership to heed it.

We are currently experiencing a lack of Republican leadership, but I know better than to hope the democrats will come in like knights on stallions and save the world.

The UN is not a governing body. It has no real authority. It is an ambassadors club.

Tell that to the General Assembly, and people will cry. Tell that to the Security Council, and....

When the UN has real leadership and actually puts UN policies into effect

Ah, you mean the US should stop vetoing the UN's actions, and the US should finally keep up with its membership dues instead of starving the UN of funds which the US is required to provide to retain the privilege of being a member. I'm so glad you think that.

Ah, you mean the US should stop vetoing the UN's actions, and the US should finally keep up with its membership dues instead of starving the UN of funds which the US is required to provide to retain the privilege of being a member. I'm so glad you think that.

Do you have a link to this? I've never heard of this happening before.

Why do I have the feeling that this is going to be used as further evidence that the UN is a group of terrorists who hate America and want to destroy the world?

He's praised the example Truman once showed, and has called on the US today to remain "true to its principles".
So, he means that we should get into an unpopular foriegn conflict based on tenuous claims of self-defense? No, wait, we've done that already, haven't we?
Maybe he wants the US to become increasingly paranoid and abusive off the rights of its citizens in order to get at a shadowy foe? I guess we've got that covered to.
Oh, I've got it! He wants Bush to utilize our entire stock pile of nuclear weapons, That will solve everything!

We are currently experiencing a lack of Republican leadership,

I wish

but I know better than to hope the democrats will come in like knights on stallions and save the world.

I know better than that too but I also have more trust that the Dems will work multilaterraly with our allies, than the Republicans did. More friends around the world = more support.

I'm sorry to have to be the one that breaks this to you and shatter your worldview, but the world isnt so black and white that just because a person doesnt agree with the Republicans that they hold the Democrats up as the most glorious party ever.

Do you have a link to this? I've never heard of this happening before.

I read about it a couple of years or so ago. I can't find my original source. What I have is Wikipedia (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arrears_issue)), but if anyone has a more "direct" source that'd be great.

Well we need the people of the United States to revolt first....so lets get on with it.....HURRAH!

Well when the last US ambassador to the UN said such crap as 'You could lob the top 13 floors off the UN and noone would notice' and 'If I were in charge there would only be one permanent security council member, the US' then I dont find this statement surprising at all.

I wish
I know better than that too but I also have more trust that the Dems will work multilaterraly with our allies, than the Republicans did. More friends around the world = more support.

Its not like they never had an oppurtunity before. How soon we forget that the now derided Regan took power from the party that was once disliked even more. They will try again, in 10-20 years people will be ready to toss them again.

I'm sorry to have to be the one that breaks this to you and shatter your worldview, but the world isnt so black and white that just because a person doesnt agree with the Republicans that they hold the Democrats up as the most glorious party ever.

You fail at comprehension, I said no such thing.

yeah, the guy we have in office now is a bad example of leadership Republican or Democrat.

How about the UN living up to its own principles first. Like maybe allowing representation of 23 million people that are now unrepresented in violation of the UN charter....how about that Kofi! Now don't you have some funds to steal or something better that lecture us about upholding principles.

:upyours:

yeah, the guy we have in office now is a bad example of leadership Republican or Democrat.
What? No third party option?

:


”We are very disappointed in the approval of a bill that will most likely trigger new U.N. arrears for the U.S.,” he said. ”The last time the U.S. withheld funds, it led to a huge debt to the U.N. and inhibited our ability to lead within the institution.

”This is like trying to force a bank to renegotiate your home mortgage by refusing to make your monthly payments,” he added.


[url=http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=667579]Also (]In answer to the earlier question[/url):


In addition to the $521 million funding shortfall for FY05-06, the Administration’s FY07 budget underestimates US financial obligations to UN peacekeeping during the next fiscal year. The Administration assumes mission closures and reductions that are unlikely to occur and does not adequately account for the expected deployment of a large UN operation in Darfur. This is likely to exacerbate the United States’ existing funding shortfall for UN peacekeeping and will lead to the accumulation of substantial new arrears if no corrective action is taken.
[...]
Since the early 1980s, the United States has adhered to a policy of annually paying its assessed contributions to the United Nations and UN specialized agencies nearly a full year late – a practice which leaves these organizations in precarious and unstable financial situations. The practice was initiated to create a one-time budgetary savings for the US Government by deferring for one fiscal year the United States’ dues payments to the UN and its specialized agencies. It has resulted in lasting fiscal stress for these organizations.

The issue of the US being slow to pay membership dues, and hence crippling the UN's ability for effective action (and then ironically blaming the UN for lack of action), is not new. In 1999, the US almost lost its voting privileges (http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=395729) in the UN, which are conditional upon paying membership dues.

How about the UN living up to its own principles first. Like maybe allowing representation of 23 million people that are now unrepresented in violation of the UN charter....how about that Kofi!

and these people would be U.S ex-criminals maybe?

Now don't you have some funds to steal or something better that lecture us about upholding principles.

considering the U.N is owed money I don't think Annan has been stealing anything

:upyours:

:rolleyes:

How about the UN living up to its own principles first. Like maybe allowing representation of 23 million people that are now unrepresented in violation of the UN charter....how about that Kofi! Now don't you have some funds to steal or something better that lecture us about upholding principles.

:upyours:

My, my, aren't you touchy... Struck a little too close to home, did it? Don't lik facing unpleasant truths?

You do realise, don't you, that the United States does not recognise the sovereignty of Taiwan either?

and these people would be U.S ex-criminals maybe?


He's refering (I assume) to Taiwan. Which is supremely ironic, considering that the US itself refuses to recognise Taiwan's sovereignty.

I read about it a couple of years or so ago. I can't find my original source. What I have is Wikipedia (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arrears_issue)), but if anyone has a more "direct" source that'd be great.

Just so you know that many nations are past due on there payments to the UN. It is not just the US. Other nations outside the US also have withheld funds to prove points. The last time the US did it in a major way was the late 90's. Was to move the UN toward reform so money wasn't wasted as much as the past.

This is someones blog that sums the problems up well. Links to his sources are at the bottom of his page:
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/5/UNextortion.htm

He's refering (I assume) to Taiwan. Which is supremely ironic, considering that the US itself refuses to recognise Taiwan's sovereignty.

I think I'm happier with Taiwanese people being alive myself

You do realise, don't you, that the United States does not recognise the sovereignty of Taiwan either?

Yeah, it was on the West Wing last night, that's the most updated source of US foreign policy these days.

Its not like they never had an oppurtunity before. How soon we forget that the now derided Regan took power from the party that was once disliked even more. They will try again, in 10-20 years people will be ready to toss them again.

I seem to Recall CLinton have very good foreign relations. NO?


You fail at comprehension, I said no such thing.


I criticized the Republicans and you said I thought the Democrats were going to save the world. It doesnt take critical thinking to figure out what where I was coming from with my reply genius.

Mr. Annan would be hard pressed to find any country that isn't in need of better leadership. Face it all, all national leaders suck.

Kofi(the pot) calling the kettle black I see. Funny how he says the US needs better leadership. Would say the exact same thing for the UN. Hopefully this new guy can do a better job. Maybe cut down on some of the scandals.

One can only hope that he does. When I saw this in the USA Today, I about died from laughter.

When the UN has real leadership and actually puts UN policies into effect, its members can talk to America about leadership. Leadership is more than having certain ideals - it requires action.

Here here!

You mean immediate military action against Israel?

Or about a dozen other places! After all, many nations are in violation of the UN Charter. Not just Israel.

I would love to see the UN start tossing nations out for violating the charter. There would be very few nations left.

You do realise, don't you, that the United States does not recognise the sovereignty of Taiwan either?

We did until Carter, that bastard.

Mr. Annan would be hard pressed to find any country that isn't in need of better leadership. Face it all, all national leaders suck.

Sad but true.

Thanks for the news brief Kofi...

...as if we weren't already completely aware of that fact. :rolleyes:

Frankly, I think the statement can be turned around on Annan quite easily. I've never thought much of him or his ability to lead the UN.

I'm hopeful that Ban Ki-moon might bring a new spring to the UN's step.

*crosses fingers*