English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

14 answers

Globalization refers mainly to economic liberalization that has raised factory employment in poor countries with low wage rates, and cheapened product prices (and the wages of the unskilled) in developed, consumer-market countries. And the profits accruing to capital, and the ranks of the super-rich. (It has also, following waves of family asset redistribution due to entry of women into the workforce (especially professionals) and computerization, led to higher house prices in key markets -- and the greatest transfer of wealth from the young to their grandparents (and, by inheritance, to their parents) in the history of the world economy.

But I think you mean something else. You mean cheap, fast global communications: Internet, CNN, Aljazeera, SMS texts, cell (mobile) phones, blogs. And cheap air travel. These have led to the maintenance of close family and political connection between countries of emigration and their satellite communities of emigres and diaspora. And, especially among Muslims, of reinforcement of non-assimilation, non-integration and of chain migration.

Kofi Anan's values are typically liberal and multicultural. But multiculturalism is asymmetric: nobody is demanding that Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (to name two countries) liberalize their attitudes towards Westerners, Christians and (to any great extent) "foreign" human and civil rights. Is that because Anan and others would not waste their time on fruitless harangues? Or because the West holds itself out as being liberal, as societies of law, as multicultural -- and those others do not?

Somewhere in there is the issue of corruption: see http://www.transparency.org .

Just a few thoughts.

2006-12-15 01:47:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Annan withdrew his support for Lubber when her misconduct charges was found guilty. So there is nothing bad going on regarding Annans position.
The reports saying Annans sons illegal actions with the Oil-for-Food Programme has nothing to do with Annan himself, as the UN commitee exonerated Kofi Annan of any illegal actions. You cannot blame him for his adult son's behavior.
Annan's dedication to the UN is been remarkably shown to be more than expected of him. I do not know much about Annan's values, but he has done a great job as a leader, eg. the UN reform policies.
I think, those opposing him is just a sign of US resentment for the UN critizism.

2006-12-16 10:47:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

LOL it's quite the question to pair Khoffi Annon to the word's "Values" and "Leadership".

Under Annon's rule of the UN:
1. Multiple members of the UN security council, as well as Annon's own son, were bribed by Saddam. This lead to the conditions that helped precipitate the Iraqi war, as he and his cohorts were paid not to enforce UN sanctions.

2. UN missions have become occasions for his blue helmeted criminals to rape and rob, and molest the children of the nations that they were supposed to protect. Annon has resisted reforms and prosecution of these criminals.

3. The UN "Peacekeepers" (lol) in Lebanon have allowed Hezbollah to move weapons into their positions while playing volleyball to show their outrage.

Khoffi Annon is nothing more than a diplomatic buffoon in the tradition of Jimmy Carter. Let his memory blow away in the dust of history.

2006-12-15 09:44:10 · answer #3 · answered by Eric K 5 · 2 0

How can you expect to bring peace to places with people like Annan. What a joke. He truly tarnished the image of the UN

2006-12-15 10:07:56 · answer #4 · answered by J M 2 · 2 0

Annan has been a remarkable secretary-general. He functioned under severe constraints of finances for UN. Super powers did not like his way of work. Yet he was patient and persevering. He did manage the UN affairs without showdowns although, the UN as an organization is much devalued in terms of its authority, or in matters of enforcement of UN charter. In so far as globalization is concerned it is good for the growth of participating countries. However experience has shown that poor get poorer and rich get richer with the present model. In other words this does not benefit the under-privileged. The model needs to be suitably modified to take care of this basic flaw.

2006-12-15 09:50:41 · answer #5 · answered by openpsychy 6 · 0 3

Values are flexible

Lubbers sexual harassment investigation
Administration of the Oil-for-Food Program
Conflict between the United States and the United Nations

2006-12-15 09:46:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I learned from his example that bending over and taking it up the wazoo is no way to negotiate effective international policy. Unfortunately for the world over these last ten years, he never seemed to learn that lesson.

2006-12-15 09:48:59 · answer #7 · answered by Tom Jr 4 · 2 0

Now you said it.
What leadership was that?
The exemplary leadership re:
Israel/Palestine?
Iraq
Darfur
Uganda
Kenya
Turkey/Cyprus
need I go on...?

2006-12-15 09:42:09 · answer #8 · answered by dorianalways 4 · 2 0

Not a damned thing .
We have enough self serving liberal scumbags seeking to line their pockets .

2006-12-15 09:42:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

that crime does pay! even for family members. at the expense of the world.

oh, and heres something of interest to read.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18447

2006-12-15 09:54:30 · answer #10 · answered by Buk (Fey) 3 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers