Annan chides US in final speech

[bigfootedfred]

Kofi Annan has made his final speech as UN secretary general, calling on the US not to lose sight of its core principles in its fight on terror.

"No nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over others," Mr Annan said, urging the US to respect human rights in its "war on terror".

Mr Annan said states had to be accountable and the UN was the only body where this could be assured.

The speech has been interpreted as a sharp rebuke of President Bush.

Our correspondent in Missouri, Jonathan Beale, said Mr Annan again raised objections to the Iraq war, a war he has already condemned as illegal.

"When power, especially military force, is used, the world at large will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it Is being used for the right purpose - for broadly shared aims," he said.

Full Story

watch in full (30 mins)



He praised the US for being historically "in the vanguard of the global human rights movement".
And then sums up what i, and many of us in 'old europe'
have been thinking for the last few years.

"When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused."

[danzig]

He praised the US for being historically "in the vanguard of the global human rights movement".
And then sums up what i, and many of us in 'old europe'
have been thinking for the last few years.

Good speech but I find it odd that a person who profited (thru their son) by abuses of Saddam era regime and oil for food program should perhaps look in the mirror before giving such a speech.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Good speech but I find it odd that a person who profited (thru their son) by abuses of Saddam era regime and oil for food program should perhaps look in the mirror before giving such a speech.

Wow, that's news! When this this new information break?

*Checks newspapers, news sites, Google News - finds nothing*

Okay I can't find this new information that Annan "profited through his son". What are you basing this on?

[danzig]

Wow, that's news! When this this new information break?

*Checks newspapers, news sites, Google News - finds nothing*

Okay I can't find this new information that Annan "profited through his son". What are you basing this on?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090701646.html
At best Kofi was incompenent leader of the UN or he had his hand in the cookie jar as well. As Im sure you are aware given your post of course Kofi was 'offically' cleared of any direct wrong doing but does it seem likely all these companies profited from the oil for food program including Kofi's son and he had absolutely no knowledge of it? And yes perhaps profited was poor choice of word as I was attempting to equate accusations laid at Bush and Iraq (and that he has somehow 'profited' from it) and Annan.

Unfortunetely ..that doesnt make him less right...

I dont disagree with that hence I said 'good speech' but if say President Bush gave a speech at the UN detailing the human right infringements of foreigners in say Syria, Iran and China what would be the first thing that pops in your head? For me...hypocrite.

[Sammur-amat]

Good speech but I find it odd that a person who profited (thru their son) by abuses of Saddam era regime and oil for food program should perhaps look in the mirror before giving such a speech.

Unfortunetely ..that doesnt make him less right...:hmmm:

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I do respect Kofi Annon as a leader and figurehead of the UN, I just feel that, as Danzig said, he needs to examine his own self and those in the UN to realize that their **** does stink as well.

[lawngnome]

I mostly agree with Annan, I just wish he wasn't such a hypocrite and would have dedicated part of that speech for a partial apology of some sort. Oh well... Oh, and 'props' to Annan for making the speech in the Truman presidential library... nice touch

[Holger Danske]

I mostly agree with Annan, I just wish he wasn't such a hypocrite and would have dedicated part of that speech for a partial apology of some sort. Oh well... Oh, and 'props' to Annan for making the speech in the Truman presidential library... nice touch

So once you critize the US for it's rather arrogant international policy you are a hypocrite?

Things the U.S. should not give a damn about:

1) Imperialism.
2) Iraq.
3) Israel.
4) Human Rights abroad.
5) What Kofi Annan has to say about our policies (Though the man has a point that we have lost our way in foreign policy).

Wow, I hope you're sarcastic, because that view really won't help you in making the US look like a decent national abroad...
But what the hell, americans to day don't give a damn about anyone else.

[Nationalist_Cause]

Wow, I hope you're sarcastic, because that view really won't help you in making the US look like a decent national abroad...
But what the hell, americans to day don't give a damn about anyone else.

Making the U.S. appear as a "decent" country in terms of morality and principle is exactly what I hope to see. The best thing the U.S. can do is to set an example for the world in reinvigorating the health and enthusiasm for our republican values and showing incredible restraint in all areas of foreign policy.

I'm sure you would agree that American military expansion abroad, needless military aggression in Iraq, uncritical support for Israel, and botched interventions for "humanitarian" purposes does little to set a good example. Indeed, it only makes us look more corrupt, evil, and power hungry in the eyes of the world. To become an exemplary nation the U.S. must refrain from engaging in wars of passion and excitement (Iraq). It must also refrain from involving itself in humanitarian interventions at the behest of the U.N., NATO allies, or the U.S. media, even if it means being chided by the U.N. Secretary General from time to time.

Call it neo-isolationism if you will. I call it prudence. And we'd sure as hell be better off today if we showed a little restraint and thought about the consequences of our actions instead of rushing off to kill a terrorist or save a starving child while killing dozens or hundreds of others in the process.

[greek302]

Yeah, what a loser, all he could do in his speech was bash us....I'm very critical of the current administration but I think Kofi could have shut up about our problems for once.

[VALIS]

Whats the matter with him?
He didnt seem to be able to string some sentence's together or pronounce words properly.
whats up?

[greek302]

It just bothers me that he has done everything he could possibly do to condem The iraq war, but nothing to help us...and he could not even let it go in his final speech..Its just dissapointing..

[Aristophanes]

I don't put much stock by the words of a man who presided over corruption that would make a byzantine blush. He may not have been directly involved, but...
I simply don't think he was a leader who recognized the important, defining conflict du jour.

Wow, that's news! When this this new information break?

*Checks newspapers, news sites, Google News - finds nothing*

Okay I can't find this new information that Annan "profited through his son". What are you basing this on?

I don't really know whether Kofi profited, but the fact that his son did is indictment enough.

Telegraph News

Washington Post News

Would you like me to post any more links?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I don't really know whether Kofi profited, but the fact that his son did is indictment enough.

"Profited" was what I was questioning. And how is what his son did an indictment of Annan exactly?

Would you like me to post any more links?

No, that's all old news. His son's involvement is unquestioned. It was this startling new claim that Annan Snr. "profited" that I was questioning, but it seems that was just some hand waving and bluster.

It just bothers me that he has done everything he could possibly do to condem The iraq war ...

Ummm, because he thought it was wrong, perhaps?

... but nothing to help us

Why should he help you with something he's said was not only wrong but stupid from day one? It never ceases to amaze me how many Americans have this weird idea that people should be "helping" them in Iraq. You guys got yourselves into that mess, why the hell should those of us who warned you not to lift a finger to get you out of it?

Reap what you sow.

[Aristophanes]

"Profited" was what I was questioning. And how is what his son did an indictment of Annan exactly?

It's called nepotism. It's called he's the head of an organization from which his son is profiting criminally. What sanctions did he impose upon his son for his misbehaviours?

No, that's all old news. His son's involvement is unquestioned. It was this startling new claim that Annan Snr. "profited" that I was questioning, but it seems that was just some hand waving and bluster.

I don't see how it is important whether Annan Sr. directly profited or not. He's supposed to be running an organization corruption free, and when it turns out it is anything but, and that his son, who no doubt benefited from his father's position, was deeply involved in the oil-for-food pocket-lining schemes, he should have resigned like a decent and self-respecting person would have done.
It's called nepotism, it's called corruption, and it's wrong. 'nuff said!

Robert Fulford makes this important contribution to the debate...or rather pillorying of one of history's worst secretary generals.

The hopeful Lies We Tell Ourselves; Comment

Robert Fulford, National Post
Published: Tuesday, December 12, 2006

How wretched is the prose we live by in the global arena, how tired and half-hearted are the lies we tell when we hope someone will think us noble.

Consider, for instance: No one can be truly free till all are free. Or: No one can truly prosper till all are prosperous.

These were among the articles of faith Kofi Annan set forth yesterday at the Truman Library in Independence, Mo., during his final speech as secretary- general of the UN.

"We are all responsible for each other's security," he declared, and "we can and must give everyone the chance to benefit from global prosperity." Furthermore, "both security and prosperity depend on human rights and the rule of law." Moreover, "states must be accountable to each other." Finally, all this will be accomplished through multilateralism, Annan's political religion.

Yet notions like these are little more than fables, expressions of an idealism that no one has ever lived by. For decades, Annan has clung to the empty slogans that created the theory of globalism in the middle of the 20th century.

"Annan calls for global solidarity," said the headline yesterday on the news service of Al-Jazeera, an institution that otherwise shows little enthusiasm for global solidarity. But that report included one sentence that summed up the crazy contradictions of Annan's regime: "As Washington reviews its policies in Iraq, Annan has pushed for greater involvement by Syria and Iran, a more inclusive political system and greater human rights protections."

Syria? Iran? Human rights? Those words don't fit into the same sentence, but Annan has never been troubled by inconsistency. Yesterday, being in Truman country, he praised President Harry Truman, a great leader who would have regarded Annan with contempt. Annan was drawing a contrast between the virtues of Truman and the vices of George W. Bush. contnd at link

[Sétanta]

Annan is a mentally retarded hypocrite. At least he acknowledged America as one of the leaders of human rights. Not only is he a worthless figurehead, he wasn't even a good figurehead. Normally people in his position try and do charity work and help the poor out, instead of supporting every single dictatorship, every corrupt organization and anybody who was willing to give him some money.

Is some of what he says true? Perhaps. But is it revelant or important? No, because we all know how terrible of a "leader" he was.

[Erik]

It just bothers me that he has done everything he could possibly do to condem The iraq war, but nothing to help us...and he could not even let it go in his final speech..Its just dissapointing..

He did encourage a lot of countries, including my own, to help America out in Iraq.
And this increased the troop count by several thousands.
What else could he have done?

Personally I think the UN should never have helped America in Iraq in any way.
Let the 5 countries of the "coalition of the willing" solve their own problem.
I think Poland could send a few thousand more troops.
And America can have a draft.

If everybody who starts an illegal war gets saved by the UN, what will be the incentive to think twice next time?

[danzig]

Personally I think the UN should never have helped America in Iraq in any way.
Let the 5 countries of the "coalition of the willing" solve their own problem.
I think Poland could send a few thousand more troops.
And America can have a draft.

If everybody who starts an illegal war gets saved by the UN, what will be the incentive to think twice next time?

So you are fine with thousands dying if only to 'prove' a point to the American goverment? The US can absorb the deaths in Iraq, in realistic numbers the almost 3,000 dead soldiers for the US is (note Im putting it in cold, realistic numbers to prove a 'point' here, I salute every soldier that has lost their life) a drop in the bucket...more people die in car accidents each month in the US then Iraq. Iraqis however are paying a far bigger price, the results of the Iraq conflict will be enough incentive to think twice next time not some petty desire to teach a lesson to the US...that lesson will be self taught by the results. Im all for your letting people 'solve their own problem' solution...too bad we cant retroactively apply that to WW2.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Remind me - who was it that started the war that devastated Europe? Was it the US? No, I'm pretty sure it was some other country.

My point exactly. Why did we rebuild europe with our money? Under your logic we had no obligation and certainly should not have. I guess we're just giving people eh?

Plenty of nations have no interest in seeing Iraq disintegrate

Oh I see, stick it to America at the cost of thousands of Iraqi lives, I like the way you guys think. You guys actualy accuse us of putting American lives above Iraqi ones...you do too. You're willing to let thousands die to "teach us a lesson".

Grow up Europe.

[Tom Paine]

My point exactly. Why did we rebuild europe with our money? Under your logic we had no obligation and certainly should not have. I guess we're just giving people eh?

If I remember it was because you were afraid that communism would take the whole of Europe and then move on to America, "infecting" it and then taking it over, in a precursor to McCarthyism.... but that's just a thought...