On the eve of his departure as head of the UN, Koffi burnishes his anti-Bush credentials, thus assuring himself a lifetime of lucrative speaking engagements to left-leaning organizations and American institutions of higher education.
Annan, an increasingly vocal critic of the war in Iraq, leaves the United Nations on Dec. 31 after 10 years as secretary-general. He chose the Truman museum for his final major speech in part because it is dedicated to a president who was instrumental in the organization’s founding.
In response to a question after his remarks, Annan said he was appealing for cooperation and leadership, not criticizing the United States.
“What I am saying here is that when the U.S. works with other countries in a multilateral system, we do extremely well,” Annan said.
The U.S. has a special responsibility to the world because it continues to have extraordinary power, he said.
No illumination of who we are is contained in the article, but:
Annan also said the U.N. Security Council should be expanded to better reflect today’s world.
I presume that that means that “today’s world” espouses the values represented by the United States.
Oh, wait:
Annan also called for expanding the Security Council by adding members from parts of the world with less of a voice. He said today’s makeup “still reflects the reality of 1945,” when the United Nations was founded.
Ah, so what he’s saying is that other nations who cannot contribute to global security ought to have a say in the exercise of US power. I guess that’s what Harry Truman must have had in mind.
UPDATE: Via Instapundit (who doesn’t need the link) comes this Jules Crittenden translation of Annan’s speech, “translated from the original bullshit”
UPDATE2x: Anon Urges Urgent Action on Emergent Urgency, Immediately Somewhat
The UN Human Rights Council must “lose no time” in sending a team of investigators to Sudan’s Darfur region, UN chief Kofi Annan has urged an emergency meeting of the global rights body.
“It is urgent that we take action to prevent further violations, including by bringing to account those responsible for the numerous crimes that have already been committed,” Annan said in a recorded message to the council’s first ever session on abuses in Darfur.
“It is essential that this Council send a clear and united message to warn all concerned, on behalf of the whole world, that the current situation is simply unacceptable and will not be allowed to continue,” he added.
The UN estimates that some 200,000 have died and two million people have been forced to flee their homes since the conflict in Darfur began in 2003.
What a wanker.
I think what he’s saying is that global, nuclear and economic powers like India, Japan, possibly even Brazil need to be added to the Security Council. He’s wrong in that the Security Council doesn’t need other permanent members; it needs to can the old countries who are no longer powerful or important (I’m talking to you France and the UK). The Security Council is supposed to represent the most powerful in military and economic terms, yet it gives plenty of credence to Euro voices, but ignores most Asian voices (you know, half the population of humanity)
China’s not in Asia?
Okay…Who Changed the Map?
WHO CHANGED THE BLOODY MAP!!!???!
Damn Kids.
Incredible. Absofuckinlutely incredible.
Jeff, you really need to do the blog equivalent of a dress code, or cover charge, or something. The quality of trolls these days is somewhat lacking.
If you did that, though, I might not be able to comment. Which, probably, is a bonus.
Now, possibly some arguments could be made for adding India (and even Pakistan, although I’d argue against that) to the list of permanent members. But arguing that Asian voices aren’t being heard when two of the five permanent members are Asian countries…well, that’s just about as dumb a statement as I can imagine.
Sure, that reduces to only one country if one goes by the UN definition of “Asia”, but all kinds of bad things can happen one one relies on UN definitions (see also: “peacekeeping”).
Yeah, China, and this may surprise you, genius, does not represent half the people of Asia. It has a billion people. India has another billion, Indonesia, the 4th most populous country on theplanet, has several hundred million more. Japan has hundred million. Iran has 60 million, Pakistan likewise.
Thus China is less than half, meaning the scurity does not represent MOST Asian voices. most= greater than 50%
I’ll accept your apologies when you can show me you passed high school geography
So, security should be apportioned according to population?
Believe it or not, I tend to agree—but the UN has this thing about private ownership of arms.
No, i thought I made it clear. Security Council memebership should be based on money and guns, i.e, power. There is no doubt in my mind that Japan and India are more powerful than the UK and France (especially France).
Possibly the UN should graant a seat to the European Union, thus giving the French, UK, and the Germans representation and then grant the remaining seat to India or Japan?
Slartibartfast, are you arguing Russia and its ten Asian people are legit parts of Asia. Geographically speaking, I suupose that is true. Sort of like Wyoming representing all the Western states?
But, realistically, Russia is a European power. There aren’t any Asians at the head of major Russian institutions and they have allowed most of their populous Asian provinces independence.
As Americans (and the following is hyperbole) we probably have as many Asians living here as live in Russia’s Asian provinces.
Damn, now I going to have to google Russian census data at lunch.
I stand by the gist of my argument, which I make on behalf of the Japanese people (who should start paying the price to defend their oil needs).
What you said was most all. Either you’re confused about the conflict between most and all, or you’re saying something like almost all. Possibly there’s a third alternative that you might discuss.
I leave you to reflect on that, and figure out what it is that you really meant, and possibly clarify. It’s clear by now that what you meant and what you communicated are two completely different things.
Indonesia, just to argue a side point, has a population of only a couple of hundred million. Let’s call it ten percent of the combined population of India and China. And, as I’ve said, I think that India arguably deserves a seat.
Which is not anything like: Asia is horribly underrepresented, just that India probably ought to have a permanent seat.
Is there any other sense of Asia other than geographical?
And ok, what you said was most, not most all, but the remainder of that discussion stands.
Oddly, you seem to be making fun of Russians being considered “Asian” while questioning why India isn’t representing Asia.
So I’m scratching my head, here: do you consider Asia to be political, or ethnic?
Oh, and depending on what you consider Russia to include, the former boundaries of Russia encompass only about half of the US population.
I think that Russia would balk at being lumped with Europe.
But population isn’t a factor in your weighting plan, is it, stinky? Therefore, so what?
Slart, stinky is trying to work in some racial quotas without actually saying so. Because of The Other™
Okay…
Let’s go with that.
So you propose India has more power than the UK.
Based on…what?
GDP?
Uh…no. And they are nowhere close to France by the way.
Well, how about how much they spend on their military?
Uh…no. India is far below the UK in expenditures. Sure they have heaps of guys in uniform, but it that a good measure? (Hint: It’s not)
What then? Population?
Well if that’s the case should China with three times the number of people have 3 votes to the US 1? What about Germany? They have one of the highest GDPs. Shouldn’t they be considered over India?
Whatever. Koffi’s still a wanker.
Who’s got the guns (i.e. nukes, plus the means to deliver them somewhere):
US
Russia (defined any way you like)
England
France
China
India
Pakistan
North Korea
Israel
UNSC permanent seats:
US
Russia
England
France
China
I’ve already said that India ought to be considered (and this may well be an ongoing consideration for all I know) for a permanent seat, irrespective of its geographic or ethnic affiliation.
North Korea, on the other hand, is a completely different proposition. And not for any ethnic reasons, either.
Population/ethnic concerns are not well-put, still: sure, Only 33% of the population of Asia is represented currently in permanent seats, but only 28% of the population outside of Asia has representation on the permanent council. 0% of Africa, I might add. If we excise India from Asia for ethnic reasons, the disparity widens.
SGT: I think your first link probably ought to have pointed here.
Dan O:
That is some mighty fine truthiness with smile quotient. Well done!
What a wanker, indeed!
Yep, Thanks!
Actually I think India should be considered as well, same with Japan, but mainly cause I see them as staunch US allies. Since all I really care about is utlizing the UN as a tool for US hegemony, adding them plays into my evil plans. Besides, it’s still fun (and easy) to tweak NeoStink.
Dude, the Un is already our tool (at least the Security Council is).
And, I propose India instead of the UK based upon economic power and military power. India’s former gains each day, whereas the UK, unless it somehow embraces the EU (which it will not), is on the wane. The Indians have the people and money to send peacekeeping forces, the act as a counter-blance against the Chinese, etc
I think the more persuasive case is for the Japanese. They are currently economically powerful and they are fine with having our soldiers and Navy protect their shipping lanes. i say it’s time for them to protect their own interests.
I just hope they don’t see their interests as an invasion of Korea or a naval battle in Vladivostok. That worked out poorly for the world (especially the Japanese) last time!
At least replacing the French with a vibrant country would create a better world order. I’m not some right wing “freedom fries” guy, and I like French history and culture. But, their power in the world has been diminshing in inverse proportion to their egos and willingness to help.
Anyway, you bunch of Sean Hannity-esque Republicans (I think that’s what Jeff said), I’m done with this topic. Let’s move on to more reasons George W is a bad president.
Uh…this bland little throwaway is founded on what, exactly? (And, just entre nous, is the Shift key function beyond your grasp, literally and figuratively?)
Nevermind, I’m off to get my Sean Hannity Action FigureTM for my nephew. I understand there’s some heightened retail activity this time of year but I’ll be damned if I can determine why.
Kofi has been giving people hell since he’s been at the UN. Bosnians, Rawandans, Iraqis, Afghanis…
Stinky leads a rich fantasy life, by all appearances.
Have mercy. Don’t take away his delusions, they’re all that he has…
Oh, The Security! (asian)
Our tool? It’s a QUAGMIRE! Nothing gets out of there.
The First Gulf War was a) sanctioned by the Security Council? b) Not sanctioned?
Our involcement in Vietnam: sanctioned by the UN, Korea? ditto. Inspectors sent into Iraq in the first and second place? Sanctioned by the UN (Happy, Kelly?)? Resolution 1441? Passed by the Security Council. Sanctions against North Korea? Security Counil approved. Somalia: UN approved
I’m not saying we always get what we want from the UN in general, but, when we care about something, the Security Council finds a way to give us legitmacy. Likewise, as in Rwanda, when the Clintons didn’t want people calling it genocide, the UN was nice enough to demur.
You guys and gals act like the US is the UN. It’s not and it’s not supposed to be. Nonetheless, there ain’t (happy, Kelly?) a nation on this Earth that gets more out of the UN than the US (Cynics would argue that’s because we pay thefew billl that do get paid and offer to maybe pay the ones we owe. Further, a UN without us would look a hell of a lot like the League of Nations. But cynics are dark, disturbed people).
Happy shopping, Kelly. Get me the Rush Limbaugh action figure complete with divorce decree and Oxycontin perscription)
PS Kelly. I worte this on break and didn’t have time to proofread it. I trust you can use your massive goodwill and intelligence to cut me some slack. If not, I look forward to your next witty post
My El Rushbo action figure with Kung-Fat Kicking action beat the crap out of my Al Franken action figure with Whimpering Cringe action. It had more trouble with the Rosie O’Donnell action figure with Slanty-Eyed Ching-Ching action, but Sean Hannity tag-teamed in and Great Americanized her to death.
Neo-stink
In your world a) is the sky blue? b) are we the only nations asking for action by the UN?
Or…
Maybe Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, South Korea, Australia, Great Britain, France, Germany, South Vietnam, Oman, UAE, Japan, and others in various conflicts also had some overiding interests.
Lately we get all kinds of flack from members of the Security Council protecting their corrupt asses on Iraq (no doubt stll lamenting the loss the under the table deals) while they dither about sanctions and pay lip service to fourth rate third world nations who take the opportunity to make their bones by trashing us. We do get some decent action from the Sec. Council but to suggest that the Council is our bitch is a gross overstatement. Ultimately, we still have to put up with the General Dissembling Assembly.
Let’s move the UN to Darfur. Then there’ll be some action!
Dan: You should complete your collection with the Michelle Malkin action figure featuring the Boo Freakin’ Hoo elbow strike. It’s especially effective on the Rosie doll, although I’m not sure why…
I’m flattered with your solicitude toward my happiness, neostink. It could’t possibly be insincere could it?
WTF? Now you’re just making shit up. I have not posited this nor has any other commenter.
).
FTR, I’m melonin-challenged but I’m definitely disturbed.
The UN is beyond worthless. While I admit I’m a sucker for smooth Ghanian-tinged English speakers as the next guy, Annan (and pretty much every one of his predecessors) defines fecklessness and trades in cheap anti-Americanism knowing it’ll carry no cost. The US gets damn little for its outsized expenditure to keep the doors open on some expensive real estate on the upper west side. Give me a League of Democracies and then we’ll talk.
I meant the grammar, not the sentiment
Using your logic then, Southern California would qualify as Asia. As the U.S. is a member, the Asians are represented….problem solved.
Well, yeah, but if you want to hear more Asian voices, send Rosie O’Donnell to the UN.