< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Kofi turns up for the prize giving

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Kofi turns up for the prize giving

Is it just me, or is Kofi trying to make sure he and the U.N. are poised to take any credit for the positives in Iraq?

Forget the Americans (and their small but significant band of allies), they had nothing to do with it. Whilst the Americans were waging war, the U.N. were quietly helping Iraq with food supplies, and preparing handy how to vote cards I suppose.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan praised Iraqis for voting in the constitutional referendum and expressed hope it will lead to peace....
...Annan said the United Nations "will continue to do all it can to help the Iraqi people to that end."
You mean there's more the U.N. can do?
ยท Linked Article

Posted by ZenTiger | 10/20/2005 09:07:00 PM

10 Comments:

Blogger Berend de Boer said...

He didn't lie. He can't help, so he did all he could do, i.e. nothing. Assuming he didn't use his 40 billion to buy some support from the "minutemen".

10/20/2005 09:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Chrongen said...

G W Bush had it right: "The UN is a failure"

10/20/2005 10:50:00 PM  
Blogger Murray said...

I'm sure all that trying to prevent the coalition from taking out Saddam was very helpful.

Perhaps he could go and explain exactly how to a few Iraqis in person.

10/20/2005 11:18:00 PM  
Blogger Chefen said...

For laugh out loud fun,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_re_us/un_global_violence

The decline in wars and deaths since the collapse of communism has been because of the UN. Cough. Tui billboard?

10/21/2005 12:10:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

That article is worth a post Chefen. Now's the chance to examine the role in the U.N. of *preventing* wars.

My initial thoughts are that the U.N. usually show up after the fact, to try to prevent conflict from continuing, but they aren't so hot at the actual prevention bit.

Look at Croatia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone for starters. Abysmal failure of the U.N.

There are reasons for the reduction in World conflicts. The U.N. is only a very small part. But they do seem to be undertaking a bit of pre-emptive P.R.

10/21/2005 08:29:00 AM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

A study this year by the Rand Corporation in the US, part-financed by the Pentagon, found that the UN was successful in 66 per cent of its peace missions.

You can interpret that as a very small part but it looks to me to be a reasonably significant contribution.

10/21/2005 10:14:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

My point Ackers1, was that it was usually successful after the fact. In terms of preventing wars and genocidal acts, its not too hot.

Once lots of killing has been done, its very successful in moving in to prevent the survivors from the continued killing (although the book I read on Sierra Leone sheds some different light on that too).

Whilst the post-war efforts are a worthy result on the face of it, I would not like to see the U.N. sit back on its laurels when it would benefit from more scrutinisation.

10/21/2005 10:19:00 AM  
Anonymous dim said...

Meanwhile, the most popular alternative to the UN - doing nothing - has prevented 0% of wars and genocidal acts, and assisted with food and shelter for a massive 0,000,000,000 refugees.

Is the UN deeply flawed? Sure. It's been very badly led for over a decade, been mired in dozens of scandals and been badly undermined by a lack of support from the US.

It's an institution in dire need of reform at it's most basic level (Why is France on the Security Council? Why isn't India? Where's Africa and South America?).

Is there anything better? Not remotely. The US occupation of Iraq beats any UN operation you care to name for corruption, incompetence and general mindless brutality - the US is not an alternative to the UN for the solution of global problems.

10/21/2005 10:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dim, Dim, Dim, you've got it backwards...

Is the US deeply flawed? Sure. It's been very badly led for over a decade, been mired in dozens of scandals and been badly undermined by a lack of support from the UN.

Is there anything better? Not remotely. The UN operation in Rwanda beats any US operation you care to name for corruption, incompetence and general mindless brutality - the UN is not an alternative to the US for the solution of global problems.

10/21/2005 07:30:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Exactly Anon. Dim, the most popular alternative to the U.N. may not be doig nothing, its just that we don't get to talk about the alternatives.

Back to my wee example of Sierra Leone. A mercenary army hired by the SL government actually brought about peace and contained the rebels, on a budget of a few million a year.

The U.N. moved in, the mercenary army contract terminated and the rebels had control within months. One band of rebels went around chooping all of the hands of villagers, creating the largest refugee camps of mutilated victims the world has ever seen.

The U.N. sat around achieving nothing at a cost of 50 million+ a year, many times the mercenary army cost.

When some British soldiers were captured by rebels, it was the Brits that got them out, not the U.N (some individuals who were implicated in supplying rebels with UN sourced arms in exchange for diamonds, a main resource of SL.)

I can think of better alternatives to the U.N than doing nothing, and advancing your preferred option (the U.N) with the worst option you can think of still doesn't make the case.

10/21/2005 07:45:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home