THIS IS GREAT!!! The first step in removing Kofi from power.

UN staff are expected to make an unprecedented vote of no confidence in Secretary-General Kofi Annan, union sources say, after a series of scandals tainted his term in charge of the world body.

The UN staff union, in what officials said was the first vote of its kind in the almost 60-year history of the United Nations, was set to approve a resolution withdrawing support for Annan and senior UN management.

Annan has been in the line of fire over a series of scandals including controversy about a UN aid program that investigators say allowed deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to embezzle billions of dollars.

Staffers said the trigger for the no-confidence measure was an announcement this week that Annan had pardoned the UN's top oversight official, who was facing allegations of favouritism and sexual harassment.

The union had requested a formal probe into the official, Dileep Nair, after employees accused him of harassing staff and violating UN rules on the hiring and promotion of workers.

Top UN spokesman Fred Eckhard announced on Tuesday that Nair had been exonerated by Annan "after a thorough review" by the UN's senior official in charge of management, Catherine Bertini.

Annan underlined that he "had every confidence" in Nair, Eckhard said, but UN employees ridiculed the decision and claimed that investigators had not questioned the staff union, which first raised the complaints in April.

"This was a whitewash, pure and simple," Guy Candusso, a senior member of the staff union, told AFP.

Candusso noted that Eckhard's declaration to the press had said that "no further action was necessary in the matter."

But in a letter sent to the union, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, Annan's chief of staff Iqbal Riza said Nair had been "advised that he should exercise caution" in future to "minimize the risk of negative perception."

In a resolution set to be adopted on Friday, the union said Riza's statement "substantiates the contention of the staff that there was impropriety" and that there exists "a lack of integrity, particularly at the higher levels of the organisation."

The draft resolution, also obtained by AFP, calls on the union president to "convey this vote of no confidence to the secretary general."

Staffers who asked not to be named, afraid that speaking out could damage their future in the United Nations, said the Nair decision was an example of corruption by Annan and his senior staff.

They noted that Riza, UN undersecretary general for information Shashi Tharoor and other top officials had served directly under Annan at least since 1994, when he was head of UN peacekeeping operations.

At the time, the United Nations was widely criticized for failing to stop the Rwanda genocide that left 800,000 people dead, even though UN peacekeepers were on the ground -- a catastrophe for which Annan has publicly apologized.

Annan could not be reached for immediate comment. He is currently in Africa on a mission aimed at ending the long-running civil war in Sudan.

But he faces unprecedented calls to resign over the burgeoning scandal about "oil-for-food," a UN aid scheme that US investigators say allowed Saddam to siphon off billions of dollars.

The program has tainted UN officials like Benon Sevan, who oversaw the operation and is now accused of pocketing Saddam's money in exchange for turning a blind eye to the Iraqi dictator's abuses.

Annan stands accused of obstructing US investigators, especially since his hand-picked official Paul Volcker this week rejected calls from the US Senate to turn over documents from the program and waive UN staff immunity.

Eckhard, his spokesman, on Thursday said that Annan is expected to serve out his term, which ends in 2006.

Veteran UN staff said this was the first time that employees had risen up to make a vote of no confidence in a sitting secretary general.

"Kofi Annan is surrounded by corruption, a gang of criminals responsible for some of the worst things that happened to mankind in the 20th century," said one angry staffer, referring to the Rwanda massacres.

"It's possible that he doesn't know directly what has gone on," said the employee, who has worked for the United Nations for two decades. "But that's no excuse."

--Here is a great way to cut government spending without forcing people to give more to the dam*ed government, US OUT OF UN.  Think about it, the UN has no telling how many countries, yet America alone pays nearly one-fourth of the annual cost.  Thats billions of dollars more for the US to help balance the budget.  Great idea, huh?  The UN is such a waste of time, money, and space.

Yay!  I vote John Ashcroft for U.N. Secretary!

Yay!  I vote John Ashcroft for U.N. Secretary!


Sweet choice.  I wish he would go for it.

Ron Paul has been introducing legislation to rid ourselves of it, maybe this time we can get it passed and wash our hands of the UN.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 29, 2003

''America National Sovereignty vs. UN "International Law"- Time for Congress to Vote
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the leadership of this body to bring a very important vote to the House floor. I recently reintroduced HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which would end our participation in the United Nations. Millions of Americans have begun to question why we continue to spend $300 million each year funding and housing an organization that is actively hostile to American interests. Surely Congress, which routinely spends 15 minutes renaming post offices, can spare 15 minutes to vote on this fundamental issue of American sovereignty.

Obviously many Americans now want to get out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don’t need UN authorization to act. But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing UN resolutions as justification for our actions. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding.

Perhaps it’s time to stop trying to manipulate the UN, and start asserting our national sovereignty.

If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted or even influenced by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I’m merely asking House leadership to schedule vote on HR 1146. Americans deserve to know how their representatives stand on the critical issue of American sovereignty.'' -Ron Paul



--Personally I still haven't found anyone who can give me a decent reason why we need to waste money in a corrupt United Nations (UN) every year.  It is not worth the BILLIONS we spend that could go to our military, education, healthcare, or paying off the national debt.  Again we are one of God knows how many countries in the UN, yet we pay nearly one-fourth of the UN's entire bill.  Anyone else think thats fair?

-And off topic, I am sick of the national debt, but you CANNOT raise taxes and force people with the government to pay more money.  US out of UN, dump the EPA, stop WASTING 15 BILLION dollars in African AIDs money every year.  Tell those idiots to zip up their pants or MAKE other countries pay even close to our share.  We pay 15 BILLION that again could go to paying off the national debt or our military while Canada pays only 225 million, and France near nothing.  Also cut all non-defense related spending by at least 5%, this debt should NOT have to go to future generations, and the people now shouldn't have to have more of their paychecks stolen from them by the government.

Spread the word: www.getusout.org

Ron Paul has been introducing legislation to rid ourselves of it, maybe this time we can get it passed and wash our hands of the UN.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 29, 2003



http://frontlinegraphics.com/stix-n-stonez/images/caveman.gif

Oh sure, there are big problems with the U.N., but God save us from knuckle draggers like Mr. Paul...puhhlease!


Better dead than red (state).

At least they are going a much more civilized route than they did with Dag Hammerskold.  They
killed him.

Here are some shockers about the United Nations:

1.The first Secretary General of the UN and a key author of the UN Charter was later found to be a soviet spy, his name was Alger Hiss.

2.Since the UN was founded there have been over 140 wars.

3.Of the first 14 UN Undersecretaries who controlled the UN's military arm, all 14 were communists.

4.In July 2001 the goal of the UN converence was the eventual seizure of all civilian guns.

Pull the US out of the UN, and use the money for military, healthcare, education, and/or paying off the national debt.

Hammer the truth and spread the word: www.getusout.org

The US withdawal from the UN is not a good idea, even for the neocons. It may seem like an epiphany now, when things haven't been going our way in the UN, but in the long run it will hurt the US. Our withdrawal won't be the end of the UN, it will continue with the EU as the major player in international diplomatic affairs, and the US will lose its 'say' in international diplomatic affairs, and it's way of diplomatic communication. Member states will pay less attention to the will of the US government, and eventually, as the EU develops and becomes more unified and stronger, the US will have both an economic and military equal, with the support of the other UN member-states behind them, before us. Our membership in the UN, and the our financial support thereof, ensures that our interests around the globe are listened to.

Here are some shockers about the United Nations:

1.The first Secretary General of the UN and a key author of the UN Charter was later found to be a soviet spy, his name was Alger Hiss.

2.Since the UN was founded there have been over 140 wars.

3.Of the first 14 UN Undersecretaries who controlled the UN's military arm, all 14 were communists.

4.In July 2001 the goal of the UN converence was the eventual seizure of all civilian guns.

Pull the US out of the UN, and use the money for military, healthcare, education, and/or paying off the national debt.

Hammer the truth and spread the word: www.getusout.org






Is it a given that one is supposed to have a fundamental problem with the former Soviet Union, or with people who identify themselves as Communists? And what does there having been 140 wars since the UN conception have to do with the success of the UN, necessarily? How many might there have been without the UN? 300? 200? 141? If it has prevented even one war, then it has served its purpose. And it seems to me that your problem lies not with the UN itself, but with the UN Security Council in particular. Two years ago, I can guarantee everyone that you, and others like you, had no problem with the UN, and that you barely payed attention to it. But now that we in the US realise that we aren't the be-all-end-all of diplomacy, and that we have to follow the rules which we have helped to create, a bunch of neocon cry-babies don't want to play anymore and they want to go home. :\'(

If you neocons weren't so dangerous, I'd find you amusing.

Two years ago, I can guarantee everyone that you, and others like you, had no problem with the UN, and that you barely payed attention to it. But now that we in the US realise that we aren't the be-all-end-all of diplomacy, and that we have to follow the rules which we have helped to create, a bunch of neocon cry-babies don't want to play anymore and they want to go home. :\'(




BINGO!  Can't you see why some people don't like some of these countries having veto power over what the United States does?  Especially from countries that were bribed by Saddam Hussein in the ''Oil for food'' program.  That money and that UN scandal could be exactly why we are in Iraq today.

I don't know how many people support a pullout, but I do know that Gallup did a poll around 4 months ago that they showed on Fox News.  It showed that only 32% of Americans viewed the United Natinos as ''favorable'' and that the number of ''unfavorable'' was in the high 50's (can't remember the exact number.)

Here are some shockers about the United Nations:
2.Since the UN was founded there have been over 140 wars.

I can see you not liking the lefties in the U.N., but I thought you guys on the Right liked wars!

Pull the US out of the UN, and use the money for military, healthcare, education, and/or paying off the national debt.



Haw haw haw!!! That's knee-slapper!  The Bushies blew so much money subsidizing tax cuts for the rich that our national debt is through the roof and halfway to the moon!  They'd probably apply money saved on U.N. dues as an excuse for another round of tax cuts for their buddies.  Anyway, the U.S. just blows off U.N. dues anyway.  What a joke!
::)

Myself, I am actually starting to agree with the opinion that the "US out of the UN".

I once thought the UN was a great force for change in the world.  I thought it was an organization that tried to achieve peace and equality for all nations.  However, now it is simply a group that tries to make everybody equally miserable, while lining the pockets of those that control it.

The US does not need the UN.  Heck, we did not even need the "League Of Nations".  Even though we were the the nation that got the idea started.  And the League did nothing when it was all said and done.  In fact, some even blame it for helping create the conditions that made World War II possible.

I see things like Korea, Viet Nam, Lebanon (2 times), Yugoslavia, Iraq, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Kashmir, Israel, Somalia, East Timor, ZImbabwe, Ethiopia, Afganistan, Lybia, Palestine, Cyprus, need I go on?

The UN has become nothing but a group that says "the US is bad", and ignores real genocide like happens in Rwanda.  I see Kofi Anon (and his son) get rich, at the expense of Iraqi citizens.  And at the same time, claiming that the US is starving Iraqi children.  Never mind that the sanctions in place were placed there by the UN.

The UN has been a failure from the beginning.  They sat back and allowed the worst of the Communist agression in the mid to late 20'th century happen, and did nothing to stop it.  They allowed Eastern Europe to become a puppet state, and allowed mass killings when the people in those countries tried to resist.

I think the UN needs to start making major changes in order to survive.  It needs to care more about the people of a country, not the government in power.  It needs to stop ALL unjustified agression between nations.  It needs to give it's sanctions real teeth.

A lot of people in the world complain when the US got involved in Iraq.  But they forget (or do not care) that Iraq was violating MANY "UN Sanctions".  If the UN sanctions have no effect, then military effort should be expended.  Otherwise, they are nothing but hot air.

The nation that is king of ignoring UN Sanctions is Israel.  They know how impotent the UN is.  They get sanctioned, but they do not care.  Because they know that the UN is not responsible for their national saftey, THEY are.  They know that the UN would just sit back and watch as they were destroyed.

And speaking of which, where are all those UN sanctions against their neighbors?  I see Israel sanctioned, but not the countries that sponsor terrorism against them.  Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordon, Lebanon all sponsor terrorists, but none of them are sanctioned by the UN.  But when Israel takes actions to protect themselves, they are the evil ones.

I give it another 5 years.  If the UN can't get it's act together, then it needs to go.

As for a replacement, I have heard 2 good choices.  How about either Rudy Giuliani or Bill Clinton?

Personally, I think Bill Clinton would be a great choice for Secretary General. And no, I am not being facetious.  I really do think he would do a good job.  Of course, we would have to make sure that none of his Interns are female.  ;D

Let me make this even more simple, is there anyone here who is a fan of the United Nations?

Fan here. Every organisation has its problems, but there needs to be a unifying consensus which governs international relations. Sure there have been many conflicts since its conception, but how many might there have been without it? I also support the UN in their non-security avatars like UNICEF, and the W.H.O.

Fan here.

Wow, one of the only 18 UN fans in Texas.  And with a 32% favorable rating, I don't think the US will be in the UN much longer.

Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US!

I see Kofi Anon (and his son) get rich, at the expense of Iraqi citizens. 
Yeah!  The only father-and-son team getting rich at the expense of Iraqi citizens is supposed to be this one:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/050900/photos/flo-BUSHES.jpg

I'm sorry, that was just too rich to pass up!
::) ;D :D

Wow, one of the only 18 UN fans in Texas.  And with a 32% favorable rating, I don't think the US will be in the UN much longer.

Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US!

The American Right doesn't really want to see the U.S. out of the U.N.  The U.N. is far to good a whipping boy.  Besides, if we really make it clear by our actions that we want to stand alone in the world, our creditors might take our word for it...and where would we be then?

No, I don't think the U.N. is so hot, but what has the American conservative movement given us in the past ten years?  Massive transference of wealth from working classes to the super rich.  The American right wingers currently bellyaching about the U.N. are exactly the kind of sons of b*tches that made communism look appealing in the first place!
::)

anyone mention this vote failed yet? or did the thread just de-evolve into UN bashing?

anyone mention this vote failed yet? or did the thread just de-evolve into UN bashing?


I didn't hear of that.  You got any articles on it?

It seems that even the liberals here think the UN isn't great.  It is a corrupt waste of money.  I'm sick of letting countries in Europe have veto power over us.  Screw them.