Who replaced Kofi Annan?

Answer 1

Ban Ki Moon

Answer 2

Does it matter? Any nation that has veto power, the permanent members of the Security Council, can render the U.N. meaningless through the use of the veto.

Any resolution that runs counter to the interest of the Security Council permanent members is vetoed, and it is as if the entire matter never existed.

With this power, the U.S. has essentially emasculated the U.N. That's why when Bolton mentoined lobbing 10 stories off the U.N. having no effect he was right.

It's not because the U.N. doesn't do good work. It's because we have made sure that the U.N. is impotent.

Now, the U.N. still does have some use for us. When we can manipulate the U.N. to pass a resolution to justify our unilateral actions, we hide behind U.N. approval -- implicitly acknowleding that the U.N. still carries moral authority.

But, as in the case of the attack on Iraq, the resolution 1441 that we hold up as the stamp or approval in fact does not justify what we did because the use of force was not as a last resort. All other avenues had not been exhausted.

But, note how the people that say the U.N. is irrelevant and evil also at the same time hold up resolution 1441 as justification?

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I know Kofi's replacement is a woman, I believe from India. Do not know her name.

Answer 3

A South Korean named Ban Ki-Moon. He is a career politician with an unfortunate fondness for Red China. I look for the UN to shift East Asian affairs to more favorable conditions for Red China as it quietly builds a hegemony over there.

Answer 4

Krusty the Clown from the Simpsons. Kofi was a hard act to follow, difficult to find someone more inept. Give Krusty a chance, all we are saying is give Krusty a chance.