Annan; The Morale Booster? I Think Not

Annan told the staff that the past few months have been a "painful time" for everyone, including himself, amid the "relentless" attacks against the organization.

The secretary-general also told them not to believe everything they read in the press. But staffers said Annan didn't apologize for his role in any of the events constituting this "painful time," and they resent that. They are also upset that Annan took only eight to 10 questions. One former senior U.N. official told FOX News those questions had all been planted by the secretary general's staff; Annan's spokesman denied that claim.

Bachir Al-Okla, an Arabic translator, asked what the United Nations was doing to address staff concerns that they face retribution if they speak out against corruption or malfeasance by managers.

Who are you going to believe, Annan or your own lying eyes after reading the Volcker report that slams Annan for failing to properly supervise the Oil for Food program? The only thing that Annan can do that would improve morale at Turtle Bay is to resign. There is no other choice.

Annan's calls for reform, which are nothing but an indirect method of reducing US influence on the outcome of any Security Council decision, is hardly a means for improving the situation in the Secretariat, or for preventing the kinds of abuse that are pervasive on peacekeeping operations. The strongest steps that can be taken, and the ones most likely to succeed, are the ones Annan refuses to consider - his resignation, and the firing of all others involved in UNSCAM, the sexual misconduct of peacekeepers, and the sexual harassment cases within the Secretariat.

UPDATE 04/06/2005 at 2:20PM EDT:
UK human rights lawyer, Kenneth Cain writes in The Guardian How many more people have to die before Kofi quits. That's a good question. Another good question might be how many people have to die before people realize that the institution known as the UN needs to be fundamentally reformed in order for anyone to place any kind of faith in the organization to hold itself to the ideals under which it was first chartered. When kleptocracies, theocracies, and totalitarian regimes can alter and thwart action demanded under the UN Charter, something is wrong with the system. Adding members to the Security Council will not fix anything, except to address the fact that the world is a very different place from 1945, when France was given a permanent seat and India and Japan weren't.

The second searing irony for me is that the American neoconservative right has occupied the moral high ground in critique of Annan, outflanking the left, which sits on indefensible territory in his support. But if prevention of genocide and protection of the vulnerable are not core priorities on the left, then what is? If anyone's values have been betrayed, it is those of us on the left who believe most deeply in the organisation's ideals. I am mystified by the reluctance of the left both in the US and the UK (the Guardian 's coverage, for example) to criticise Annan's leadership. The bodies burn today in Darfur - and the women are raped - amid the sound of silence from Annan. How many genocides, the prevention of which is the UN's very raison d'être, will we endure before the left is moved to criticise Annan?

This, too, is an excellent question. Why is the Left so dedicated to maintaining the status quo when the status quo is so deadly efficient in its genocidal policies?

Perhaps it is high time to strip away the term liberal from the left. They are ideas on a different political axis. One axis would be conservative and liberal, while the other axis would be left and right. Currently, those on the left are seeking to maintain the status quo, which functionally places them in a conservative left position, not as a liberal left.

I think this is an idea that is well worth exploring more deeply.