Kofi Anna's UN General Assembly Address

Sparks

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
ADDRESS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
New York, 23 September 2003
AS DELIVERED

Good speech. Hope to grief that the people involved have the necessary fortitude to carry it out though.
But given the past year or so, I'm sadly skeptical that they will

bonkey

Saw it live on the telly. Excellent speech. For me it struck the right balance between being realistic about where the problems are without getting too insulting to any nation.

Its also the first time I can recall the SG openly stating that certain things (e.g. the "first strike" doctrine) needed to be discussed and agreement reached on how/when they could/should be used, as their use threatened the entire existence of the UN.

(I'd supply the correct content, but your URL is busted...it contains a ... in the midle where something truncated it.)

On the other hand, Bush - who's speech-writer I have always considered an excellent - sounded like a broken record.

Only days after clarifying that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11, he started by discussing the attacks of September 11th, and then moved on to how Iraq was the geographical centre of terrorism which perpetuated such attacks, etc. etc. etc.

I actually agree with Bush's stance that he should not negotiate with himself or the media. I have no problem with him neither being willing to discuss the differences he has with the other permanent Security Council member-nations, nor suggesting any possibility of concession on the part of the US. However, one would think that he and his advisors would have realised by now that the belligerent "never say sorry" approach of the US is only exacerbating the situation, and if they genuinely are seeking help and/or improving their international public image, then the first thing they should do is stop being so gung-ho in front of the cameras.

Still, I'm sure enough people here will disagree loudly enough to prove me wrong on that one

jc

PH01

If you needed any proof that Iraq has become a political football yesterdays speeches in the UN should leave you in no doubt.

There appears to be an international determination to make the US pay for their unilateral experiment in Iraq this year. And on many levels rightly so. And Bush losing the election in 14 months time seems to be the price the US will have to pay (nothing less will do).

Until then there is going to be one hell of a political football match on a grand scale with Iraq in the middle. But there are going to be many losers in this game; US Foreign policy, the UN, and the Iraqi people.

So sit back and watch, and do your best to relax.

SCULLY

I agree that the real loosers will be those in Iraq, but Bush and co can't have it both ways. They totally ignored the UN, went off and invaded another country, and now that the body bags are coming back to the US of A, he wants the UN to clean up his mess.
It was reported on the news the other day that the general public in America has 'grown bored' with the Iraq situation and now Bush's popularity is at an all time low. George should have learnt the lesson from his dad - don't invade another country until you are coming to the end of your term of office, as the voting american public seem to has a limited attention span and memory.

gom

The problem with Bush and most American presidents in the last 50 years is they are more concerned with Domestic opinion than any other influencing party. Mainly because unlike most other countries that are vunerable someway or another. The only person who can overthrow an American Dictator is its people and not a forigen power... Thanks to continuous truth spin and with the aid of the American Media, the US has the largest and most ignorant Swing-voter population in the world.

The US public becoming bored with Iraq is testament to this.

Slobdan Milosevic was right. Show the media the concentration camps lots. Put TV cameras on them. The yanks will forget them after the weekend!

Where as most other countries and publics have a long-term view and a good prospective of world affairs. Only 2% of americans have passport...

bloggs

Originally posted by bonkey


I actually agree with Bush's stance that he should not negotiate with himself or the media. I have no problem with him neither being willing to discuss the differences he has with the other permanent Security Council member-nations, nor suggesting any possibility of concession on the part of the US. However, one would think that he and his advisors would have realised by now that the belligerent "never say sorry" approach of the US is only exacerbating the situation, and if they genuinely are seeking help and/or improving their international public image, then the first thing they should do is stop being so gung-ho in front of the cameras.

Still, I'm sure enough people here will disagree loudly enough to prove me wrong on that one

jc

Bush has commitments to the people who PAID for his election campaign, if he doesn't honor these (sell off all Iraqi oil to US firms, give all reconstruction to US companies, and install a puppet government so none of the above change), then he is in big trouble, and won't get re-elected. How ever if he wants to get the UN involved, he has to surrender something. But as any good negotiator knows, you go to the table demanding a lot, so you can compromise.

colster

I think that the UN will prove that they are not as toothless as Bush said they were before the war.
Iraq may turn out to be a political football for a few months but it may not neccessarily be a bad thing.
The UN will demand a role in re-constructing Iraq, constituing a new civil government, a timetable for US withdrawal and turnover of power to a democratically elected Iraqi government. They could also demand a free and open tendering for civil and oil contracts.

If any or all these demands are met then it can only be a good thing for the Iraqi people.

bloggs

Originally posted by colster
I think that the UN will prove that they are not as toothless as Bush said they were before the war.
Iraq may turn out to be a political football for a few months but it may not neccessarily be a bad thing.
The UN will demand a role in re-constructing Iraq, constituing a new civil government, a timetable for US withdrawal and turnover of power to a democratically elected Iraqi government. They could also demand a free and open tendering for civil and oil contracts.

If any or all these demands are met then it can only be a good thing for the Iraqi people.

This is also the problem that once the UN is on board, it's beaucratic system may be it's downfall, as when the UN wants to start setting up aspects of a new Iraqi government, it could find the US vetoing things it doesn't like, and we will be stuck with a powerless UN carrying out token work in Iraq. The UN will be stuck, unable to move, as it has committed to helping the US, but with US vetos on things like construction, elections and the like, the UN will once again be used as tool of American foreign policy.

gom

Originally posted by colster

The UN will demand a role in re-constructing Iraq, constituing a new civil government, a timetable for US withdrawal and turnover of power to a democratically elected Iraqi government. They could also demand a free and open tendering for civil and oil contracts.

The trouble is the UN hasn't taken a side so to speck. They need to place demands on the US. Not countries via the UN (e.g. French moves and US vetos). The UN has now taken a more hostile and engaging mood. One which it should have taken long ago and avoid the burocracy it has been in for the last 30 years. For the UN to truely work it needs to be democratic and end the veto system and permanent seats. Votes should be taken by all countries and a form of qualified majority voting similar to that if the EU should be in place(i.e. Majority of nations and majority of the world's population). That way India and China can't singlehandidy rule the world and its a much fairer system than the GDP voting majority proposed by the yanks

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
(I'd supply the correct content, but your URL is busted...it contains a ... in the midle where something truncated it.)

Fixed now.

Sand

The UNs fecked either way isnt it?

Either it goes in and gets to work helping the ordinary Iraqis with humanitarian and civil programmes - and in doing so accepts American conditions and control. I.E. it comes when it master calls it and speaks only when spoken to.

Or it decides to play grand politics over the Iraq issue, exsposing its "concern" for ordinary Iraqis as being extremely limited. This also undermines the UN, revealing it to be simply a political tool of the permament members no different or any more moral or righteous than any other strategic alliance throughout history.

Option A helps the Iraqis but confirms US supremacy.

Option B harms the Iraqis, erodes the UNs supposed moral superiority and allows the US to blame the UNs failure to act as the reason for any problems that may occur. On the plus side they get to make Bushes life a tad harder. Wooooooooooh!!!!!!

And on the other side the US wins either way - Option B is more damaging to their interests but they can exploit it to demonstrate the UNs irrelevance and corruption - a long term goal of the neo-con agenda apparently.

Either side seems to be banking that that the other cares more about any suffering in Iraq. None of the US's critics actually believe they give a **** anyway, and its supporters will accept the suffering is due to UN bitterness. The US would be correct to believe that the UN will crack first in any politicking. Or would they? Does Chirac and co not have the interests of Iraqis at heart at all? If so, why is the UN an obviously superiour organisation to run Iraq?

Sparks

Sand, you're reasoning as if the UN was a seperate authority from the other nations of the world. It isn't. They don't have the choice of "standing up to" or "knuckling under to" the US, as the UN is nothing more than the forum where the US and the other 180-odd countries in the world discuss matters. Kofi's trying to get the other countries to do the choosing between standing up and knuckling under, rather than saying that "the UN" has to do so.
Aspects of the UN do need reorganisation, primarily the UN SC, and it's damn gratifying to see Kofi publically calling for this, but the real actions can't be taken by the UN, but have to be called for by member states. Which is why I'm sadly skeptical of the odds of success

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand

Option A helps the Iraqis but confirms US supremacy.

Option B harms the Iraqis, erodes the UNs supposed moral superiority and allows the US to blame the UNs failure to act as the reason for any problems that may occur. On the plus side they get to make Bushes life a tad harder. Wooooooooooh!!!!!!

Of course, there are other options as well. Reducing it to the "Help the US" / "Do nothing" binary logic is the same limited view as the "Help the US" / "Support Saddam" rubbish we had before the war.

The UN is stating loud and clear "we want to help, but we will not be lackeys to the US". Now, you want to see that as nothing but political brinksmanship, then fine. I see it as the only possible stance left whereby the UN can retain any credit.

Look - the US is asking for money and troops, while it remains in full control. This means that its asking the UN (and hence other nations of the world) to donate money to the rebuilding of Iraq, which the US will then direct as it pleases. Can you spell Halliburton?

I'm sorry, but for the UN to show that its only concern is the Iraqi people would be irresponsible. It has a larger obligation to the world at large to remain as an independant body, and not just become a bankroll and a mop for US messes.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by gom
The problem with Bush and most American presidents in the last 50 years is they are more concerned with Domestic opinion than any other influencing party.

It's not so much that politicians are concerned with domestic opinion as they shape domestic opinion. If a large percentage of the population knew the darker parts of US history as well as have a well rounded view of what they do today then domestic opinion would be a serious threat.

Where as most other countries and publics have a long-term view and a good prospective of world affairs.

One reason I don't live there anymore.

Only 2% of americans have passport...

I'm one of the (possible) %20

From sovtek's link:

Add on the fact that the US is big enough for you to travel domestically for a lifetime and still think a) you’ve seen a hell of a lot of world; and b) you’ve still a lot of world to see.

I'd say that is a big factor.
Apoligies for drifting slightly off topic, but the following has to be told to illustrate that insular isn't just an exclusively American thing:

Around 1990 I was a back seat passenger in a neighbours car driving from Wexford to dublin to see my father in hospital.
My neighbour was driving and his wife was in the front passenger seat.
Anyhow we were proceeding along, the dual carriageway at Kilmacanogue when My neighbour proceeded into the faster right lane.
His wife got very agitated and Shouted Alfie!! Get over to your own side of the road before we are all killed!!
She was around 30 at the time and had never been to Dublin before and had never been on a dual carriageway before.
And that is a true story.

mm

mr_angry

I think its good to see that Kofi Anan is reminding people of the actual significance of the United Nations, and the real reason its there - to try to stop us anihilating ourselves. If only everyone else felt the same way.

The UN really is in an impossible position. I think the only way out of it is if George Bush believes that the US has too poor a reputation internationally, and adopts a plan to paint the US in a better light. However, I think he's far too busy worrying about internal US politics to give a sh*t about our opinions, and so he wont bother.

To be honest, I don't know what is going to happen. Fingers crossed that more people will come around to Kofi Anan's way of thinking...

Chaos-Engine

The problem with the United Nations is what it represents. Nations! The Nation state is all but irrelavent now unlike what it was just pre-WW2. We have supra-national blocs such as the EU and US/NAFTA, WTO, World Bank, IMF, NATO, Islam(as an ideal) and the West. Add to these the large Multi-nationals which are fast becoming Tansnational organisations themselfs. The world can't be run on the principle of equality between states under the consenus mechanisms of the UN. Its nice to think that we have sovernty but since the advent of Globalisation not a single country on earth has soverignty of its own affairs anylonger except maybe North Korea and Aglantis?? Nationhood is been maintained by the larger more powerful nations as they have the most to lose from welcoming a truely global system of governce(which the UN is not as it is undemocratic and unaccountable).

The UN can't reform in the long-run. It has reached its course and i think we should accept this chilling idea and start to work on a new way forward. Not Multi-Laterialism(such as the EU and UN models), Not Unilateralism(such as the US) but a Globalism.
We have a global economy. We have a global outlook and outreach(mostly-) so lets start over. Now before we find ourselfs in more dire straits with a possible EU-US trade war on the horizena and the emergance of the Southern-Hemisphere alliance(i.e. G21) which has more than half the gobal population on its side and the growing technological advances to attract the large corporations to their doors over the next 10-25 years...

Globalism Democracy

Sand

the UN is nothing more than the forum where the US and the other 180-odd countries in the world discuss matters.

And why is the UN then superiour, morally especially to many, to the US running Iraq? It merely changes from one state running things to a gang of states running things.

The UN is stating loud and clear "we want to help, but we will not be lackeys to the US". Now, you want to see that as nothing but political brinksmanship, then fine. I see it as the only possible stance left whereby the UN can retain any credit.

I agree - If the UN follows option A of helping the Iraqis first and worrying about the politics of the situation later they leave themselves in the position of being subservient to the US and its interests.

If they follow the second option of playing politics first before going in to help the Iraqis then they spell out very clearly that the suffering of Iraqis ranks behind the politics of the situation - again eliminating their credibility as some sort of moral third way; this is the organisation after all which has co-operated with some of the most vile regimes in history in the interests of ordinary people so they claim but now is unwilling to do so with the US.

Sorry if binary logic bothers you but whats the third position the UN can take? - either it helps pretty much unconditionally or it demands conditions on its aid for political reasons.

I'm sorry, but for the UN to show that its only concern is the Iraqi people would be irresponsible. It has a larger obligation to the world at large to remain as an independant body, and not just become a bankroll and a mop for US messes.

Irresponsible politically but it might be the moral, UN type thing to do. Anyone see the irony? Prior to the war people were condeming the US for *any* civillian casualties or suffering, and yet now the UN can blatantly place the interests of ordinary Iraqis way down the list of their concerns re:Iraq. Its also a wonderful double standard that the US has been castigated throughout its history for placing pragmatism ahead of morals in its foreign policies and the UN is exscused from any similar criticism?

Where as most other countries and publics have a long-term view and a good prospective of world affairs.

13% of Germans believe the US was behind the 9/11 attacks.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Irresponsible politically but it might be the moral, UN type thing to do. Anyone see the irony? Prior to the war people were condeming the US for *any* civillian casualties or suffering, and yet now the UN can blatantly place the interests of ordinary Iraqis way down the list of their concerns re:Iraq.

You're basically saying that the UN should do anything the US says in order to save Iraqi lives, right? But why are Iraqi lives at stake? Because the US is clearly completely incapable of administering Iraq in a safe and secure manner and the country is in utter chaos. You can understand why the UN is a little reluctant to encourage the US to do this to another country by cleaning up after them. Because what's to stop the US turning Iran into a ruined terrorist jamboree and then pleading with the good old UN to sort everything out, because won't someone please think of the children! who are dying due to our complete stupidity?

The UN clearly needs to do more to help Iraq, but it clearly must not take its orders from the neocon f***wits who are in charge at the moment.

Sand

The UN clearly needs to do more to help Iraq, but it clearly must not take its orders from the neocon f***wits who are in charge at the moment.

So, in short - the UN is prepared to play politics with the suffering of ordinary Iraqis. They are *not* concerned with the Iraqis. They *never* were . They are ultimately concerned with the political horsetrading between the US, France and Germany.

Im sorry - the UN is morally superiour to the US how now?

You see what I mean when I say the UN is fecked whatever it does. The Neocons will certainly rub their hands with glee at playing the tearful "what about the children?!?!" role instead of Chirac for a change.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
So, in short - the UN is prepared to play politics with the suffering of ordinary Iraqis. They are *not* concerned with the Iraqis. They *never* were . They are ultimately concerned with the political horsetrading between the US, France and Germany.

Im sorry - the UN is morally superiour to the US how now?

Ordinary Iraqis are suffering because the US is incapable of providing for their security. The other members of the UN want to reduce the power of the US and increase the power of other countries in Iraq, so that Iraq will be safer. So yes, it's playing politics in that it is about power, but it is playing politics in order to relieve the suffering of ordinary Iraqis. The ones who are really abusing the system are the US, who seem to view their own incompetence as some sort of bargaining chip.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
So, in short - the UN is prepared to play politics with the suffering of ordinary Iraqis. They are *not* concerned with the Iraqis. They *never* were .

On the contrary. If the UN permits the US foreign policy approach to continue, then the average Iraqi is in a lot more difficulty, not to mention the average human. For a start, US policy in Iraq is somewhat akin to that seen in hostile takeovers in the yuppie's halcyon days - go in, take something over, carve it up in chunks that get sold off to the highest bidder, keeping only whatever you want yourself, and make out like a bandit in the process. For a single example, the figures quoted on replacing one bridge by KB&R in Iraq was about fifty times that of the local engineering firm, which had already rebuilt it twice after it was destroyed by bombing in the Iran-Iraq war and the first Gulf war, and the local's timeline was about half that of KB&R. But local companies are ineligible to bid for reconstruction contracts...
Then there's the privitisation of every sector of the Iraqi government excepting anything to do with oil, the US executive order prohibiting any form of legal action against the oil companies in Iraq, and so far we haven't even gone near the behaviour of the uniformed thugs that the US seem to be calling soldiers these days.
Power and phones and water and sewage and other basic services are still not restored fully (but oil's already shipping at a rate several times higher than during the OFF program), policing is a joke, there are no iraqi-elected officals anywhere in Iraq at present, and not only have the old Iraqi police been re-hired by the US, so has the old Iraqi secret police (as in, all of them, not just some sqeaky-clean branch that only ever threatened people and never actually hung them off meathooks in front of their kids).

And that's what you want the UN to offically condone?

And that's only in Iraq - we haven't even mentioned the whole pre-emptive strike doctrine and what that will do to world stability if it gets sanctioned by the UN.

So no, the UN isn't playing politics with the average Iraqi - it's just that to do the best for the average Iraqi, Kofi cannot urge the GA to back the US.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Sorry if binary logic bothers you but whats the third position the UN can take? - either it helps pretty much unconditionally or it demands conditions on its aid for political reasons.

Its not necessarily for political reasons.

if the UN continues on your so-called "humanitarian" path of kowtowing to the US, then what is the purpose of the UN, other than to serve as a forum for the US to hand out bills for its latest escapades? the answer is - at best - "whatever purpose the US decides to let it have".

Now, consider the world at large....a somewhat larger issue then Iraq. One major purpose of the UN is to attempt to find an alternative to, or limit, intra-national conflicts around the world. How should that be done? Through diplomacy, negotiation, treaties and genuine agreement (when genuine agreement can be reached). Without the UN, that would be highly unlikely. With the UN proving itself to be a US lackey, that would be equally unlikely.

But whats the alternative? Well, we can have the US initiate unprovoked invasions on nations as it sees fit, and then have all the remaining nations asked to supply troops to solve that mess. Then when somethign else occurs, or someone else asks the world to look after some other crisis (e.g. Liberia), they can be told "sorry - no troops available - all available troops are currently deployed where the US told us to send them and we just don't have the resources to help.

I'm the first person to agree that the UN could do a far better job then it currently does, but I do not see making the world's nations a mop-up-toy for US foreign policy as a good direction to be heading in.

Ultimately, the third option is to hold out to try and prevent things from getting worse. One of the basic principles behind teh foundation of the UN was to find an alternative to war to prevent something like WW2 re-occurring. Looknig around the world, we see how many nations follow the US lead.

The US announced a war on terror, and used this as justification for some questionable acts. Within weeks, their own "war on terror" was the justification for every action the Israelis used against Palestine, the Russians against Chechnya, and who knows who else.

The US announced that it was withdrawing from the ABM treaty. Despite having ratified the NPT in 1970, the USA' current position at best can be said to pay lip-service to the treaty. The US is also openly discussing the development of new-generation nuclear devices, as well as a nuclear "shield". At the same time as making these clearest and most obvious indications that it is quite happily continuing down the nuclear road, the US would lecture the rest of the world on the development of nuclear weapons - such actions being in violation of the NPT.

This is the role model and authority you would replace the UN with??? Because once the UN makes it clear that it is only a servant to the US, thats exactly what will happen.

I'm sorry, but replacing the role of the UN with any single nation in the international arena is just about the scariest thing I can imagine. When that nation is one which seems to be leading the way (or at least close to the vanguard) in disregard for international co-operation, I feel even less secure.

The UN needs to retain authority, because if it does not, then all of the treaties which it has strived to bring in to effect over the past half-century - to prevent war, or just to try and build a better world - can be thrown out. You think the US can get replacement treaties in there? You think it can broker new, fairer agreements that nations will come on board with? Not a chance - not with any nation it can't just aim a gun at and say "sign".

Ultimately, there are bigger issues than Iraq, and I do not feel that "playing politics" is a just or apt description of the issues at stake here. Sure, the political wheeling-dealing is a part of it - but its a part of supplying the aid as well. Lets not forget the incredible imbalance between the massive amounts of humanitarian aid (in terms of money) being requested and supplied to the oil-rich Iraqis and the comparitively meagre amounts being supplied to the Afghanis. At the very least, that indicates that there's a third factor here - a financial one. Three factors, and its still just a binary equation?

So, no, its not a binary equation. There is the political side of the situation in Iraq, there is the humanitarian side of it, the financial side, and there is the overall larger picture. The entire situation is not Humanitarian vs Political. Its Humanitarian, Political, Financial, and "long-term objectives" all bashing off each other - as they always do, and as they probably always will.

So reduce it to a binary equation if it makes you feel happier, but to me thats just another way of spinning the argument to suit whichever stance you happen to take.

The fact that the situation can be reduced to any number of binary arguments should indicate that there is far more than one black/white issue here, which should automatically show that the binary argument is fallacious.

jc


jc