Did I miss something?
Secretary General Kofi Annan on Monday will propose establishing new rules for the use of military force, adopting a tough anti-terrorism treaty that would punish suicide bombers, and overhauling the United Nation’s discredited human rights commission, according to a confidential draft of a report on U.N. reform.
The 63-page draft report represents Annan’s most ambitious effort to restore international confidence in an organization that has been traumatized by divisions over the Iraq war and battered by revelations of financial impropriety and sexual misconduct by its personnel.
Is it budget time at the UN?
I don’t know if any of these things wil come to pass, but conservatives would be wise to work with Annan to achieve these goals, and then get back to the business of shoving him out the door.
The possibility also exists that Annan isn’t the demon he was made out to be.
M. Scott Eiland
. . .adopting a tough anti-terrorism treaty that would punish suicide bombers. . .
That’ll be a heck of a trick to pull off–charred pieces are not going to be terribly intimidated by UN sanctions or even by UN-employed sexual predators.
I for onenever thought he was a demon. I do however believe he’s either deeply corrupt or amazingly ineffectual.
If you have a third possibility I’d love to read it. Haven’t seen one yet.
Yet another intelligent conservative Republican who has decided to think for himself. Glad to have found your blog, sir!
It’s my first time stopping by your blog, but I’ll probably be back.
You’re doing a fantastic job with the Schiavo case, and a conservative advising prompt collaboration in UN reform efforts is truly a breath of fresh air.
Even though I’m pretty much liberal across the board, I read a few conservative blogs that represent the aspects of the Right that may someday win me over (you move right as you age, or so i hear).
Anyways, I appreciate the insight.
JPS, Kimmmit is on a demonization kick. To his way of thinking (ie, knee-jerking), it’s all just an issue of spin. And if people weren’t so dumb to fall for the demonization of all he holds dear, the Democrats would be running congress, Bill’d be starting his 4th term and Kofi? Well, Kofi, would be doing what Kofi does best: setting up his friends and relations with the high-paying jobs they deserve.
Bill’d be starting his 4th term,
Man, what is it with conservatives and casual unconstitutionality?
Kimmitt, hyperbole aside, jdm has a point. Your ideas generally need no demonization for me to disagree with them. A scrupulously honest and fair presentation of them will generally do just fine.
And still you don’t answer: Is Annan even partly responsible for the mess the UN is in? Is he in some sense negligent? Or are the massive corruption and godawful human rights abuses minor compared to the great good he’s done (and, if so, what could that possibly be)?
I’m not being polemical; I’m genuinely curious. I’m usually pretty good at coming up with a non-strawman argument for the other side, but on this one I come up blank.
Kofi also handled Rwanda so well – and now Darfur…
However, how much power does Kofi really have? The Security Council makes the decisions. The bureaucracy runs the thing..he’s more of a figurehead I’m guessing.
I’m profoundly unfamiliar with the details of Annan’s administration of the UN, so I can’t offer any kind of information on it. I merely wished to note that there has been an awful lot of vitriol aimed at Annan which is, in fact, inconsistent with his current actions. Maybe stopped clock, maybe sign that the criticisms were unfair, maybe new leaf. Dunno.
I have to agree with Kimmitt, no matter how painful that is. The UN’s problem isn’t Kofi, it’s the UN. I seriously doubt that any Secretary General could make it work.
Annan’s reforms are meaningless because the UN is rotten beyond repair. You can continue giving transfusions to a corpse, but it is really a waste of resources.
Gosh, Kimmit, and here I thought the Consitution was malleable, flexible, and always open to any new & modern interpretation. And now with the recent under-18 death penalty decision, the Constitution is now subject to the whims of world opinion.
But conservatives practice casual constitutionality.
Kofi can say this easily, he knows the UN has no follow through.
I thought the Consitution was malleable, flexible, and always open to any new & modern interpretation.
I can put you down as against “Brown v. the Board of Education” then? Or is there possibly some middle ground?
So, Kimmitt, with Brown v. Board, casual constitutionality is a Good Thing?
But I assumed it was bad. Silly me. Your comment above was a compliment that conservatives finally get it!
“Or is there possibly some middle ground?”
uaeza poiuyt http://ghjkliaeeea.com/