Comments on: Norwegian memo sparks PR crisis for UN’s Ban Ki-moon

By: tom valentine

tom valentine — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:31:13 +0000

Ban-Ki Moon makes a mockery of the so called ‘moral authority’ that is the United Nations!

His actions (or more accurately, inaction!) was a disgrace and the silence of his organisation in the genocide of over 50,000 Tamil civilians by the Sri Lankan government has no word to describe it, except heinous!

The swine needs to wash his mouth out and examine his conscience before uttering a word on the plight of the Tamils!

Has he no shame???

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 04:10:50 +0000

All this shows is that he is not a personality driven diplomat like Annan. IMO there is nothing wrong with not having a ‘loud’ personality, as long as he shows himself to be good at what he is supposed to do.

The other side could say that personality is a requirement; if so, then its because of what the UN is seen as. Too often the UN gets the attention of otherwise uninterested people by pandering to middle-class obsessions (Angelina Jolie, human rights charities trying to mention UN etc).

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:07:52 +0000

Luscia, I disagree with you.

Because there is no such thing as veto power in General Assembly or in the UNHRC.

Meaning Anti-Israel resolutions easily pass. Especially when Islamic and third world nations hold the majority vote.

By: Luisa Da Silva

Luisa Da Silva — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:51:25 +0000

Anon, I disagree with you as 98% of anti-Israel resolutions were vetoed by the US.

Nikkei225: I also disagree with your comment that Kofi Annan was the best leader of all times. He did nothing to stop the invasion in Iraq. U.N. knew that Saddam destroyed all his weapon of mass destruction in the 90′s but he said nothing. United Nations is a “puppet” of United States as US is the biggest payer. What UN needs is a leader with an “iron fist” and who will have the courage to say NO to the US. China and Russia combined should replace the US financially and there will be peace on earth. US keeps killing people in Pakistan and Ban Ki-Moon says nothing as well as the world. Is UN complicit in crimes committed by the US around the world because “the check is in the mail”????

By: Anon

Anon — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:06:22 +0000

Hmm. Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon.

The first was leader over a racially motivated, loud, biased and ineffectual international body.

The second is leader over a politically deadlocked, quiet, reserved and ineffectual international body.

What is the real difference here?

The UN has spent the last decades doing nothing. All the General Assembly does is pass anti-israel resolutions. All the Security Council does is ignore various global incidents and try to freeze conflicts until they become wars.

A change in leader means nothing. After all, the UN is designed so the leader makes no decisions.

By: Nitin M.V

Nitin M.V — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:16:01 +0000

For a body like UN, a fiery, inspiring leader with a resounding oratorical skills is what is required. Moon seems to be on a silent globe trotting mission.

By: Nikkei 225

Nikkei 225 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:42:52 +0000

Kofi Annan was one of the greatest secretary-generals ever, a charismatic leader and a diplomat pur sang. Ban Ki Moon is annoyed that he stands in the shadow of his predecessor and that’s probably the cause of his tantrums.