Impeach Kofi Annan and Arrest Him

It seems clear to me Kofi Annan, current misleader / figurehead of the UN, is turning out to be the real enabler of world conflict during the last few decades. I can't begin to describe my outrage for the gall this man has to treat the US as such a villian while he lives so lavishly on the UN budget, supply his family and friends with Oil-for-Food bribes, while he personally tries and cover up the biggest scandal in UN history, ignored Rwanda, and protected Saddam Hussein's genocidal regime (who should have been deposed, while I disagreed with Bush's reckless methods of removal and lack of planning and honesty).

What if Annan had not enabled Saddam to embezzle money so long? Would the International embargoes following Gulf War 1 have worked? Would hundreds of thousands of people now still be alive? Billions of dollars be spent on trade and health of people rather than blowing things up?

We have the US Senator in charge of the Senate investigation of the Oil-For-Food scandal calling for Annan's removal, following hearing Kofi's son Koji has been on the take for 5 years.

Kofi Annan has earned a life in prison, his assets stripped, his name smeared in history, nothing less.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. What's yours?

Hiro, I agree with you. It was the underhanded deeds of Annan, France, Russia and other countries who helped Saddam dodge the sanctions that ultimately caused the entire mess. I don't think Bush handled it 100% correctly either, but evidence is mounting that sanctions could have gone on for hundreds of years and they would have made no impact whatsoever because of the scandal-ridden "Oil-For-Food", aka "Line-My-Pockets", program.

Annan, Putin, Chirac -- they all made money on this, with checks written almost literally from Saddam Hussein's checkbook.

Putin = Stalin as my friend from te Ukraine puts it, only not a commie.

I dunno man... Kofi is in a hard position and I'd hardly call him a horrible human being. For one, he's never started a war let alone an illegal one.

Also check out this for a little more background info on the first GulF War. See, Kuwait was formed by the Brits and defended by them in the 60's when Iraq tried to reclaim it's lost soil. Then after surviving the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq planned to pay off a debt to Kuwait by raising it's oil prices at OPEC -- but they were constantly undercut by Kuwait.

Saddam did wish a final round of diplomatic negotiations before attempting an invasion. The US diplomat didn't care... what that means, I'm not sure. I'm also not sure wether the CIA-Kuwait connection was actually meant to undermine the Iraq plans to raise oil-prices and such in order to destabilize their economy... but considering the history the US had with using underhanded politics and cheap tricks, I wouldn't put it past them.

I'm not defending the man, Saddam, but it was an aggravated situation that the US did force its nose into. That much is certain as it lead the US into the Gulf War.

Either way, it forced a conflict there... so I wouldn't say Kofi "protected" Saddam or anything. To me, that argument is more of a right-wing republican vitriol. Though I would be inclined to believe it when I see facts and proof rather than charges and accusations. Conjecture and speculation are only so valuable...

<<Annan, Putin, Chirac -- they all made money on this, with checks written almost literally from Saddam Hussein's checkbook.>>

But - but -

No, it's not worth it.

Well..the U.S. is acting villanous in a few major ways, and our present administration has shown it's scorn for both the U.N. and other world committees and treaties. And the U.S. also has a very long history of being "enablers", including helpung Saddam and Osama.

I'm certainly not saying Kofi is doing the right things, but we, as a country, are a long ways from innocent.

Generalization: People with power are jerks.

Sounds like you summed my opinion up perfectly, Hiro. Full agreement here.

HIRO, you are absolutely right and I applaud u for taking a somewhat politically incorect, albeit right, conclusion... Throw the bum out... there are a few who should be tossed, if not the entire UN.

Let's see.

Annan is an international diplomat with diplomatic immunity while in nearly any country except that in which he retains citizenship.

Sure. Let's string him up. Arrest the bugger. Throw out the so-often-referred-to-when-ti-suits-us "liberal refuge" of "internation compact" of "international legalisms" just because some individual is morally outraged that - OMG!?!? He is accused of something "illegal"! Oh, no. Can't have that.

This is another "heroic" post that makes absolutely no real world sense.

HIRO, you are absolutely right and I applaud u for taking a somewhat politically incorrect, albeit right, conclusion... Throw the bum out... there are a few who should be tossed, if not the entire UN.

I think it's hilarious that republicans are demanding he resign. He hasn't been convicted of any wrongdoing (yet), but they changed the house rules so DeLay can stay while he's investigated for campaign fundraising fraud. Not too hypocritical or anything. Perhaps we wouldn't have these kinds of problems if we'd work with the UN more often than against it. If he's guilty then by all means he should be brought up on charges... but no sense stringing the man up until the facts are known. People are just a little too eager to have a reason to say "see we told you the UN was corrupt and useless!"

LOL Chip you make my day.

Yes yes! Let's abolish the U.N! Even though "WE" created it LMAO. I find that halarious.

WW3 here we come!

And while "we" are implicating him of these alleged offenses, perhaps "we" should sweep our own front porch. This falls under the dirty hands clause, if you ask me (which no one has but I'll say it anyhow). It is like one crack dealer trying to sue another for infringing on his territory.

Couldn't had said it better!

If he did something illegal, prosecute him. If he did something unethical, force him to resign. If political interests in the United States are using the issue symbolically to attack the UN for reasons not immediately connected with the oil-for-food issue, they should be exposed and politically punished for their hypocrisy and deliberate attempts to mislead the public. If people are being sucked in by the storm of rhetoric surrounding this issue -- and coming to simplistic conclusions -- they should pause, think, and be realistic.

Kofi Annan was originally regarded as an American toady -- a moderate pro-western diplomat forced on the UN by the United States after the "anti-American" reign of the former general secretary, Boutros-Ghali. When Annan proved less-than-pliable to American manipulation in the Middle East and East Asian tariff issues, the Clinton administration turned on him. (US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once screamed obscenities at him for twenty minutes.) The Republicans under Bush have followed the same tactics, tarring him with a variety of different "scandals". It's not clear whether Annan is a corrupt and incompetent diplomat, or the victim of a concerted smear campaign. As with nearly all political leaders, it's probably a little of both.

As for the UN, it's an American invention -- so's the concept of collective security -- and it serves vital political, cultural, and economic roles in the global order today. No matter how badly it's run, and it's run very badly, something like it is absolutely necessary -- and the idea of "pulling out" or "putting an end to it" is dangerous to the welfare and security of the United States. The current disaster in Iraq demonstrates how important the UN can be the American foreign policy -- if we ever learn how to use the organization properly.

More revenue for Saddam from Oil-for-food than NASA's budget? Way to go guys. (Latest numbers I've heard are over 20 billion.)



It would be nice, but it's kinda hard when they're helping the enemy out behind your back too.

To determine if it's hypocritical, we have to determine a few things...

- Did the (individual) republicans (if more than one) who called for Kofi's resignation support the change of house rules? (Also, did any Democrats?--Was it indeed a partisan change or was it supported by all?) Norm Coleman does not equal "they" (Republicans), unless they've voiced the same opinion themselves. Even Bush didn't say he should resign.

If Norm (and I don't know if he did or not) didn't support the change of house rules, than there's no hypocrisy. These are important details that words like "they" used often in this forum really gloss over. It comes across as very partisan.

- Campaign fundraising fraud (among a questionable system in the first place), and a corrupt humanitarian aid program (the lovely details of which I'll omit for lack of redundancy)...they are hardly comparable, are they? It's up for debate whether or not they're similar enough...probably not.

- We do know for a fact that this occured on his watch, over a long period of time, and it's the very type of thing he's supposed to be aware of--it's partly his responsibility. If he was really entirely ignorant of it, one could still question his competency; if he was aware or involved, well...either way perhaps he should resign.

A rather old, funny quote?

"It is highly possible that there's been quite a lot of wrongdoing, but we need to investigate and get to see who is responsible."
--Kofi Annan

(Perhaps he spoke with some insider knowledge? )

I wonder if he was really surprised when his son's name came up... let's not hang 'em yet, but they'd better be damned sure to turn him upside down and shake out whatever he's got in his pockets. I just hope we can trust countries like France and Russia to be cooperative (heh). Didn't some German companies or something get involved in this too? I don't hear mention of that anymore for some reason. Well, at least we have China in the UN to keep things going smoothly...

In any case, points like "it's hypocritical" are moot. The question is, should he resign at this point or not? (Which I'll have to think about and get back on, probably gonna be too busy the next few days...)

Edit: By the way, whether you agree with it or not, that IS a funny title for this thread. lol "and arrest him"

yell ya what -- if you'ld like to prosecute Annan because his SON took 100 grand for some kick backs --maybe you'ld like to also prosecute Cheney, Haliburton et al for bilking millions.

freakin' hypocrites.

All "hypocrite" defenses are moot, since they have no bearing on Annan's guilt. Stay on topic.

Saying "he isn't guilty of anything" contradicts Annan's own words when he "apologized" for the genocide in Rwanda.

...

Let me say that I think it's pathetic that I posted about a world-wide issue and certain posters had to respond with pure partisan hackery.

Kendra, I'm not sure if you were responding to something I said or not, but I never said he should be prosecuted for a crime of his son's. BUT if it can be proven that he knew about it, and (especially being the man in charge.....) he ignored it--shouldn't that be considered criminal?

And if he didn't know...well how many billions are we talking about here? It's a pretty ugly thing to have happen on his watch. Wouldn't hang him, as I wouldn't hang Bush or Clinton for 9-11 happening, but given that the level of complexity is many factors simpler and much more under his personal control I wouldn't be surprised to see people questioning his competence anyway.

And yes, all defenses based on the hypocrasy of the ones *in the right* on this topic are pointless...

If his replacement comes from Asia (which it should), hopefully his replacement will come from Japan or South Korea (good thing China is pretty much automatically ruled out). At least we know they..have a pair, unlike some UN member nations. (kidding, kidding)

How about that rumor that Clinton might be his replacement? lol

He is not subject to US laws; He is not subject to European laws. He is an international diplomat - with respect to embezzlement or fraud. There is no mechanism in place anywhere in the world to try him for anything - and therefore, technically, he is innocent.

As for pathetic, you brought a drahma-filled topic here, "hero". ((edited))

Ugh, well that's the lawyer viewpoint I guess. And we all trust them to act in everyones best interests right?

If "guilty", he wouldn't be morally innocent either way. (But please none of that "morality is relative" nonsense, some things are obviously wrong to anyone with any decency.)

Nope. Wasn't offering the legal perspective but the international diplomatic one.

As THE UN representative, he is outside of 99% of all national laws. There is no international court - and no national cour anywhere - which has jurisdiction over him as the Sec general of the UN. As such, he is technically above the law --- that is international diplomatic status, not mere legalism.

As for whether he has done what he is accused of, all responsibility for whatever happens in an organization is ascribed tot he top guy when things go wrong --- at least in modern times. In this case, consider the previous Sec General histories. Kurt Valdheim (I think it was) was an ex-Nazi... but his "administration" was not charged, even by those against Valdheim himself, with the type of corruption that Annan's has been. OTOH, it has been knnown for years, for decades, that many of the UN's orgs have bene used to funnel America's "dues" to the private coffers of other nationa's UN diplomatic representatives or other nation's sponsored UN employeess (llike in UNESCO and the UNCH/HC[sp?]).

So, outrage at what Annan and his cronies or family are being accused of is ridiculous. He is acting based on previous experience/knowledge of what he can get away with. Individual citizen righteous indignation about that is wasted.

Either way it's an artificial, "technical" argument that can't excuse the fact that he (assuming guilty) has allowed something he absolutely should not have allowed. The fact that Oil-for-food benefitted a dictator makes it that much worse too--it's not just a simple matter of taking handouts.

We could say he (if guilty) has betrayed the world's trust--put forth all the international agreements, treaties, and laws you want--he should be punished somehow for it. (Again assuming guilt here..) Otherwise what kind of example is it setting? No idea what the change should be, but if he's guilty and he's allowed to walk on a technicality, SOMETHING has to change there.

Korg,

You speak of laws? Since when have laws stopped political power en masse from doing something, or forced a political power to do something?

Besides, you've ignored the very title of my thread, "impeach and imprison". Impeachment being first - removing him from his position that shelters him from law - and then imprisoning.

Annan's position is to chair an organization.
Like any organization, if enough members feel that the leader needs to go, then one way or another, the leader will be removed.

As for pathetic, partisan hackery is pathetic regardless of the location.

Just once, Korg, it'd be refreshing to see you respond to my posts with an air of civility, and not arrogance, incorrectness, and vulgarity.