The W
Views: 100074508
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.10.07 0450
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Plurality of Americans find UN unfavorable Register and log in to post!
(964 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (4 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3135/4700
EXP: 21590471
For next: 246191

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1069 days
#1 Posted on 3.5.04 1211.29
Reposted on: 3.5.11 1214.11
Makes you wonder why the Democrats insist upon talking about it in positive terms in an election year...

* * * * * *

38% Have Favorable Opinion of U.N.

Down from 48% a Year Ago


Favorable 38%
Unfavorable 44%
Not Sure 19%


April 27, 2004--Just 38% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the United Nations these days. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found that 44% have an unfavorable view.

The UN response to the War in Iraq and recent scandals have apparently dragged down the international organization's reputation. Today's favorability ratings are down significantly from a year ago. Leading up to the War with Iraq, 48% of Americans had a favorable opinion and 31% unfavorable.

Among self-identified liberal voters, 60% have a favorable opinion of the UN while 25% have an unfavorable view. Conservatives see things much differently--20% favorable and 62% unfavorable.

Moderate voters are evenly divided--41% favorable and 36% unfavorable.

Among those who say they will vote for President Bush this November, 18% have a favorable opinion of the UN while 66% have an unfavorable view.

Among Kerry voters, it's 59% favorable and 21% unfavorable. Those not committed to either candidate are evenly divided--39% favorable and 33% unfavorable.

A related survey found similar political divides over the questions of whether the USA is a good role model for the rest of the world to follow.

The telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 25-26, 2004. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence.


Promote this thread!
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 3738/7534
EXP: 43754327
For next: 547435

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 482 days
Last activity: 482 days
#2 Posted on 3.5.04 1631.41
Reposted on: 3.5.11 1632.24
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Makes you wonder why the Democrats insist upon talking about it in positive terms in an election year...

    * * * * * *

    38% Have Favorable Opinion of U.N.

    Down from 48% a Year Ago


    Favorable 38%
    Unfavorable 44%
    Not Sure 19%


    April 27, 2004--Just 38% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the United Nations these days. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found that 44% have an unfavorable view.







Nice to see DEAN has ventured into polling.
Side note, surprised its only 44% that have an unfavorable opinion of the UN.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3145/4700
EXP: 21590471
For next: 246191

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1069 days
#3 Posted on 5.5.04 0720.57
Reposted on: 5.5.11 0721.03
Of course, this may be why:

* * * * * * * *

'Other Priorities'
Why won't the U.N. answer questions about its Iraq scandal?

BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
Wednesday, May 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The harder the United Nations tries to keep a lid on Oil for Food, the more the scandal keeps boiling over. This past Sunday Secretary-General Kofi Annan appeared on "Meet the Press," rejecting as "outrageous" allegations that this graft-ridden U.N. relief program for Iraq had helped prop up Saddam Hussein's regime, and denying that the U.N. has made any attempt at a coverup. Asked by host Tim Russert why only a portion of the documentation requested of the U.N. by the U.S. General Accounting Office had been turned over, Mr. Annan protested: "We are open. We are transparent."

That sounded lame enough, coming just after Mr. Russert on national TV had flourished in front of Mr. Annan a letter sent by Mr. Annan's own Secretariat on April 14, advising one of the pivotal Oil for Food contractors, Saybolt International--which oversaw Saddam's oil exports--to keep quiet.

Now investigators for the House International Relations Committee have dug up a second hush letter, this one dated April 2, sent by the U.N. to yet another crucial Oil for Food contractor: Cotecna Inspections. This is the company that for the last five years of the seven-year program held the U.N. contract for the sensitive job of authenticating all goods being shipped into Iraq under Oil for Food--and was recommended last October by Oil for Food's executive director, Benon Sevan, for the work it is still doing in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority. (Cotecna is also the company that for the better part of three years before winning its slot in the Oil for Food program, in December, 1998, employed Mr. Annan's son, Kojo Annan, first on staff and then as a consultant, a potential conflict of interest that the U.N. did not declare.)

Both letters, to Saybolt and Cotecna, are signed on behalf of Mr. Sevan, each by a different member of Mr. Annan's staff. Mr. Sevan was on vacation, pending retirement, when they were drawn up. The letter to Cotecna was a pointed reminder of terms of the U.N. contracts with Cotecna, detailing that all documentation connected with Oil for Food "shall be the property of the United Nations, shall be treated as confidential and shall be delivered only to the United Nations authorized officials on completion of work under this contract."
In the letter to Saybolt, dated 12 days later, the message had become tougher and yet more detailed, telling the company that any requests for information not already public should be relayed to the U.N., including "the reason why it is being sought." The letter to Saybolt also made specific mention that if U.N. internal audit reports are asked for, "we would not agree to their release." These would be the same internal audits that the U.N. Secretariat--which administered the Oil for Food program--did not share with the Security Council and has refused to provide to Congress.

In other words, in the interval between March 19, when Mr. Annan finally conceded in the face of overwhelming evidence that the program might after all need investigating by independent experts, and April 21, when former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker was appointed to head to the investigation, Mr. Annan's office explicitly reminded these two crucial contractors, which worked for the Secretariat's Oil for Food program checking the imports and exports involved in more than $100 billion worth of Saddam's oil sales and relief imports, to keep quiet.

Mr. Annan's reaction when confronted with the Saybolt letter was to explain that "we are protecting all the material for the investigation that's been handed over to the Volcker group," as well as to say he himself had no knowledge of the letter: "This is news to me." Mr. Annan's office has since defended such letter-writing on grounds that "this is standard procedure" and "an institutional response." According to Mr. Annan's spokesman, Fred Eckhard, "To protect our name and our documentation, we put in every contract with a supplier that documentation relating to UN business can only be released to the United Nations, unless otherwise authorized."

It's that phrase, "unless otherwise authorized," that needs attention. The U.N. has the authority to open the books if its officials so choose; the main question is whether the boss wants to. A senior congressional staffer notes that "with the stroke of a pen, the U.N. can clear the companies from all confidentiality."

Instead, after years of insisting on the confidentiality of vital details of Saddam's deals, on grounds such as the argument that disclosure would offend the "sensitivities" of some member states, the U.N. last month came up with a new reason. Secrecy must be maintained, or so says the U.N. letter to Saybolt, "so as to avoid impeding the Secretary-General's independent inquiry and to accord due regard to the Organization's privileges and immunities."

It's high time for Congress, which appropriates 22% of the U.N.'s core budget, to ponder precisely why these U.N. privileges and immunities should be allowed to outweigh the rights of both U.S. taxpayers and Congress to know what it was within Oil for Food that some of the participants were so sensitive about.





There's also the question of why Mr. Annan's Secretariat itself is so sensitive. Take, for example, those April letters to Saybolt and Cotecna, signed on behalf of Benon Sevan. On Monday, when only the Saybolt letter had come to light, I phoned Maurice Critchley, the U.N. official who had signed that letter on behalf of Mr. Sevan. He told me that Mr. Sevan had no hand in it: "The letter was not done on any request or instruction on his part." So who, then, initiated Mr. Critchley's signing of the letter over Mr. Sevan's name?
Mr. Critchley declined to answer, and instead directed me to Mr. Annan's office--to which I sent three questions pertaining to the Saybolt letter. The answer was an e-mail from Mr. Annan's spokesman, Fred Eckhard, which began with the accusation that "you twist the facts." Mr. Eckhard went on to say, "Frankly, we have other priorities. I will answer one of your questions, the first one." This was a question about who, precisely, at the U.N., had authorized the signing of the Saybolt letter over Mr. Sevan's name. To this, Mr. Eckhard gave the answer quoted above, that it was "an institutional response."

The second question, which Mr. Eckhard did not answer, was whether the U.N. had sent similar letters to other contractors, "For example, has the Secretariat sent a similar letter to Cotecna?" The answer to that is now clear, with the Cotecna letter cited above surfacing via the House International Relations Committee the next day.

The third question was, who is the individual on the U.N. staff now fielding Oil for Food matters and authorized to give definitive answers? That one Mr. Eckhard also did not answer, but Mr. Critchley did: "The Secretary-General."


(edited by Grimis on 5.5.04 0823)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 705/2704
EXP: 8932538
For next: 56281

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#4 Posted on 5.5.04 0824.18
Reposted on: 5.5.11 0824.25
The UN certainly has its problems, however, part of the reason the American public may have such a low opinion is we have constantly been hammered for around 20 years about how ineffectual an organization it is.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: AP - Bremer Knew of Prisoner Abuse in November
Next thread: Dole Says Kerry Medals Flap Doesn't Matter
Previous thread: Another Asshat slams Tillman
(964 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Plurality of Americans find UN unfavorableRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.178 seconds.