It's time for Kofi Annan to resign from the United Nations.

I agree.

proof?

speking of "lacking in confidence and credibility" Bush continues to support Karzi and Putin who consistentently demonstrate their failure to implement or maintain any sembalance of democracy.

It has been pointed out, to little affect, that Annan did not have resposiblity for that program. It was a committee of the permanent council member of the UN that had the responsiblity. And that three of those member states, France, Russia, and China received the majority of the kick backs that Hussein was doling out. The "outrage" over this scandal is nothing more than a cover for another agenda. Annan, and rightly so, called the US invasion of Iraq illegal, and that has ruffled some very sensitive feathers.

Kofi's term is up in 2005. He will last that long, and the last thing he would do is resign because of AMERICAN pressure. It will be interesting to see what position, if any, he takes thereafter. He has been working for the UN since 1962

Retirement to a villa on the French Riviera?

<Just a wild guess>

I agree...he's staying put for the next two years.

Yeah. I guess he's above the law. Who has jurisdiction over stealing from the UN when you're the SG of the UN?

Kofi is an elected SG by the member states, jurisdiction lies with them.

Well, there you go. He made sure all of them (except us) got a share of his BOOTY. They'll probably put him up for a Nobel prize.

Yeah, like they did with Yasser Arafat. Apparently the Nobel prizes do not have the same credibility like they did in the old days!

Actually, Annan was appointed to his second term in office (started Jan. 1, 2002 and ends Dec. 31, 2006).

...No, he's a scapegoat
By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | December 5, 2004

WASHINGTON
NOW THAT virtually all of official conservatism and the Republican legislative juggernaut have opened up on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, with President Bush's winking acquiescence, it's time to explore a simple question: Just what is it that the guy has done? The answer is nada. It turns out there is no evidence that he did anything while the notorious and corrupted oil-for-food humanitarian program was operating in Iraq during the 1990s and beyond.

This lack of even a charge comes in the face of Annan's unequivocal denial that he ever had a single thing to do with, or any specific knowledge about, any of the deals made while the mess of a program was operating.

The latest headlines were generated last week by a freshman Republican senator, Norm Coleman from Minnesota, who chairs the principal subcommittee that has been investigating the program for months. Coleman called on Annan to resign.

Instead of showing that there is some groundswell of US political opinion against the secretary general, Coleman first showed a willingness to destroy the foundation of bipartisan diligence on which his investigation had previously been built. This is especially odd behavior because the investigation is nowhere near completed. Second, Coleman was illustrating the classic behavior of a politician who has no evidence in this scandal culture of ours -- claim that the questions raised by a probe that has found nothing on its subject nonetheless raise questions that compel his resignation.

Remainder of Article

Going after Annan/A sordid move by Coleman
December 4, 2004 ED1204

Good old Norm; it appears there's nothing he won't do for a headline, or for his GOP masters. Minnesota's junior senator made quite a splash this week with his call for the resignation of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, a splendid public servant whom the city Sen. Norm Coleman once governed has considered a semi-native son since his years at Macalester College. Even if he had never set foot in St. Paul, Annan would deserve far better than the stuff Coleman is dishing out.

The ostensible reason for seeking Annan's resignation? It was on his watch that Saddam Hussein diverted billions from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program designed to relieve the humanitarian burden on Iraqis suffering as a consequence of U.N. sanctions.

Note that no one has the slightest whiff of proof that Annan knew about, condoned or profited from this scandal. Furthermore, when the scandal surfaced, Annan appointed former Fed chairman and man of impeccable honor Paul Volcker to thoroughly investigate the matter. Volcker's report, which both he and Annan have promised will be made public, is still a work in progress.

So why is Coleman so exercised, aside from the prospect of juicy publicity? Well, he says, Annan isn't cooperating very well with Coleman's Senate subcommittee, which also seeks to investigate the matter. The United Nations hasn't provided documents the subcommittee needs.

The sanctions were imposed by the U.N. Security Council, the food-for-oil program was initiated by the Security Council, and Annan works for the Security Council. He does not work for the U.S. Senate. Moreover, Volcker has told the Senate subcommittee that it can have the documents it seeks once he is finished with them -- most likely next month. That seems about right.

Readers also should know that this isn't a new issue, and it has very little to do with the oil-for-food program. For months before the election, the right-wing constellation of blogs and talk radio was alive with incendiary rhetoric about Annan and the oil-for-food scandal, not to mention accusations that the mainstream media were soft-peddling it to protect Annan. This is really all about Annan's refusal to toe the Bush line on Iraq and the administration's generally unilateral approach to foreign affairs. The right-wingers hate Annan and saw in the food-for-oil program a possible chink in his armor. They went after it with a venomous fury. Coleman seems only too eager to aid their cause.

Numerous Star Tribune readers have pointed out -- appropriately, in our view -- that if Coleman wants to investigate scandal, he need not go as far afield as the United Nations. He could start with those really nice contracts that Vice President Dick Cheney's former firm, Halliburton, got in Iraq. He could move on to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Just this week, for instance, came accusations from the International Red Cross that treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo amounted to torture. Then the Washington Post reported a secret memo from a Pentagon investigator, written before the Abu Ghraib scandal hit the front pages, that warned the brass of widespread abuses. What brass has been held accountable?

There is so much from the last four years that Coleman could find to keep himself busy. Just about every aspect of the Iraq misadventure smells to the high heavens. But of course investigating those things would be unpleasant for those Coleman so fawningly seeks to please. What an embarrassment.



(Posted entire article but can reference here if you want to register)

Star Tribune

Bush's people are like a flurry of bulldogs, going after anybody not toeing the line. They will possibly be able to topple annan, but they shouldn't be allowed to.

Per Rasmussen, 68% of Kerry voters have a favorable view of the UN, 16% unfavorable.

Guess we'll just have to wait for the Volcker Report...and then listen to the gasps and "who knew?" crowd LOL.

One way of looking at it is that 68% could be right.

What makes you believe every allegation you hear that has to do with Democrats, the UN or any other group not in current favore of the GOP? That might be something for you to wonder about.

Hmmm - interesting - the US wants more help from the UN re Iraq etc - I wonder if Annan is seen as too independent?

As for the stuff re his son - the same rules, for me, apply to Annan, or Bush, or any other damned public figure - unless there is complicity in family illegal actions - or they directly impact upon the way the public figure performs her job - whatthehell has it do do with it?

Is there some evidfence that Annan knew about, or was complicit, in the alleged activities?

Wad the son in a position to be corrupt because of his dad's job - ie was he there because of nepotism?

The other day I ran across the headline "UN to issue alert over spread of nuclear arms".

I burst out laughing. Seriously.