Author Topic: UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan  (Read 112 times)

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan
« on: November 19, 2004, 12:10:22 PM »
In other news: Chirac: U.N. should decide on wars
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/19/uk.chirac.daytwo/index.html

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."

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041119/1/3onv4.html
 

Trauma-san

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16639
  • Karma: -231
Re: UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2004, 11:46:14 PM »
I'd put money down saying Bill Clinton will eventually be elected UN secretary-General.  He'd be perfect for it.  The whole orginization is liberal leaning, and Clinton has an unbelievable amount of Charisma, it's his dream job, and I've heard he'd like to have it. 
 

Don Rizzle

  • Capo Di Tutti Capi
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: -4
Re: UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2004, 01:42:02 PM »
why is liberal such a dirty word in america?

iraq would just get annexed by iran


That would be a great solution.  If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
 

Don Rizzle

  • Capo Di Tutti Capi
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: -4
Re: UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2004, 01:44:17 PM »
hes a definition of liberal, but then all these things must be against republican views


n]  a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
[n]  a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
[adj]  tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
[adj]  showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
[adj]  not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
[adj]  given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
[adj]  having political or social views favoring reform and progress

iraq would just get annexed by iran


That would be a great solution.  If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2004, 02:03:36 PM »
Clinton said it best recently, explaining the difference between liberals and conservatives:

 "America has two great dominant strands of political thought... conservatism, which at its very best draws lines that should not be crossed; and progressivism (liberalism), which at its very best breaks down barriers that are no longer needed or should never have been erected in the first place."
 

Trauma-san

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16639
  • Karma: -231
Re: UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2004, 06:02:15 PM »
When did I say liberal was a bad word? In this convo, I didn't, I just stated that Bill Clinton,... A LIBERAL, would fit in well with the U.N., a liberal organization.  Get a fuckin' GRIP.


P.s., Liberal is a bad word, but I wasn't even talking about that.  I just said Clinton would be elected Secretary general, and I even paid him a compliment.  Stop getting your panties in a bunch. 
 

Don Rizzle

  • Capo Di Tutti Capi
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: -4
Re: UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2004, 04:43:14 AM »
it wasn't particularly what you said it more something i noticed in a run up to your recent election bush would use the word liberal about kerry as much as he could. so why is liberal such a bad thing in american politics trauma?

iraq would just get annexed by iran


That would be a great solution.  If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan
« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2004, 11:30:27 AM »
Conservative Columnist in NYT Op/Ed piece comes to this conclusion:

"This marks the end of the beginning of the scandal. Its end will not begin until Kofi Annan, even if personally innocent, resigns - having, through initial ineptitude and final obstructionism, brought dishonor on the Secretariat of the United Nations."

--- apparently 'ineptitude and obstructionism' are grounds for dismissal only when its in regards to political opponents.  Of course, the President's refusal to testify on record and alone, before the 9-11 commission is not worthy of criticism, nor is their initial desire to prevent Condi Rice from testifying and eventually placing severe limitations on her testimoney, nor is their initial opposition to the very idea of a 9-11 commission.  And a mismanaged war in Iraq, a mismanaged economy, more than a few scandals, and a looming investigation into whether Halliburton was unfairly given no bid contracts for Iraq aren't grounds for criticism either.  Afterall, its unpatriotic to criticize the president, that is, if he is a republican.  The party of personal responsibility and accountability believes in their ideals only when it relates to 'the enemy' while, personally, I believe in holding both sides accountable for their wrong doings. Clearly, the 'liberal' international community at the U.N. feels the same way.  They believe in holding their own kind accountable when they make inexusable errors.

Anywayz, Engel will now call me a ignorant, bleeding heart liberal, or something of that nature, and post a picture of Colin Powell to prove republican voters, who voted to keep segregation part of their state constitution, and who elect candidates that write books entitled 'favored races,' aren't racist.    Oh wait, that was another thread. 
« Last Edit: November 29, 2004, 11:33:50 AM by Ant »
 

acbaylove

  • Guest
Re: UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan
« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2004, 11:51:18 AM »
Sorry Ant, but your point is? ::)
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2004, 12:09:13 PM »
The propensity of many current republicans to apply double standards.