PDA

View Full Version : UN Refugee Chief Resigns


KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 10:04 PM
I guess some people are caught up with the big stories at home. The downfall of talonnews.com may start another dot.com disaster. However, there is minor news abroad that actually made the Big 3 tonight. See below:

In the real world of politics, Ruud Lubbers is forced to step down amongst his sexual harassment scandal after sexually assualting an American employee. Sadly, only the Dutch can press charges against Lubbers as he has diplomatic immunity. You know the Dutch, the same people who are using their UN soldier uniforms to keep children in sexual slavery in Africa?

These are the people that many of you wanted us to answer to. With the above and the fact that the leader's son is embroiled in the food for oil scandal with possibility of millions of dollars illegally moved for gain for Hussein and elite members of the UN, I find your lack of indignation against them to be in poor form.

UN Refugee Chief Resigns (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-02-20-lubbers-resignation_x.htm)
U.N. refugee chief resigns
UNITED NATIONS (AP) U.N. refugee chief Ruud Lubbers resigned Sunday over sexual harassment allegations, declaring his innocence but indicating Secretary-General Kofi Annan had left him little choice.

By David Karp, AP

Lubbers' resignation came two days after a meeting with Annan in which U.N. diplomats said the secretary-general offered the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees two choices resign or face suspension and charges of breaking U.N. rules.

Annan accepted the resignation, saying the continuing controversy had made Lubbers' position "impossible."

In his letter of resignation, Lubbers, a former Dutch prime minister, maintained his innocence, indicating that Annan had decided it was time for him to go.

"To be frank, and despite all my loyalty, insult has now been added to injury and therefore I resign as high commissioner," Lubbers said.

At a news conference after Friday's meeting, Lubbers insisted that Annan never asked for his resignation. But after he left U.N. headquarters, he was contradicted by Annan's office, which said the prime topic of their meeting was his future.

U.N. lawyers then started preparing charges against him, U.N. diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

Annan said he was "convinced that (the resignation) is in the best interest of UNHCR, its staff and the refugees it serves that the page be turned and a new chapter be started," according to a statement.

Although Annan acknowledged he initially had accepted advice that the allegations were unsubstantiated, "the continuing controversy has made the high commissioner's position impossible," the statement said.

Annan thanked Lubbers for "the devotion and the commitment he has shown" to helping refugees over the last four years.

Allegations first surfaced last year that Lubbers had made unwanted sexual advances toward a female employee, but Annan said there were insufficient grounds to fire him.

On Friday, however, Annan consulted lawyers, clearly angered at the resurgence of sexual harassment allegations following a newspaper report that included graphic details.




Continued below

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 10:05 PM
Lubbers accused U.N. investigators of compiling a biased report and of leaking developments to the news media. He also rejected the investigators' allegations that employees feared retaliation if they complained.

Lubbers, who has insisted the allegations of sexual harassment were "made up" and "slander." told Annan he would continue to be available to UNHCR until a successor is found.

The agency's chief spokesman, Ron Redmond, said: "It's an extremely sad day for the high commissioner and for UNHCR."

He said the turmoil was "really difficult for any organization to go through. The high commissioner realizes that, too."

Redmond told The Associated Press that Lubbers had "poured his heart and soul into this job over the last four years."

"He's one of the hardest-working people I have ever seen, and what a lot of people don't know is that he has done it all for free. He has refused to take a salary."

Redmond said Lubbers returned his paycheck to the agency and paid his own travel and other expenses. "Each year over the past four years he has given UNHCR about $300,000," Redmond said.

Annan has come under fire from the U.N. Staff Union for rejecting an internal investigation's conclusions that Lubbers engaged in sexual harassment. The secretary-general concluded that the charge could not be legally sustained, but raised concerns about the incident and possible attempts to influence the investigation.

Britain's The Independent published the first detailed description of the woman's allegations, and statements from four other women who didn't file official complaints but claimed Lubbers sexually harassed them. The U.N. investigators concluded that Lubbers' overall behavior indicated "a pattern of sexual harassment."

According to a report Friday on ABC News, the internal investigators' report said Lubbers engaged in "serious acts of misconduct" involving "unwanted physical attention of a sexual nature" and "lacks the requisite integrity" for the job.

At the news conference, Lubbers vehemently denied an allegation by a female employee that he put his arms around her waist, pulled her back toward him and pressed his groin into her at the end of a meeting in December 2003.

"There were two witnesses in the room who very clearly saw that I ushered the lady out of the room with my hand on her back, and that was all," he said. "I call it familiar but certainly not sexual harassment."

unlurking
02-21-2005, 10:12 PM
You know the Dutch, the same people who are using their UN soldier uniforms to keep children in sexual slavery in Africa?

Whoa, musta missed this one. Care to get me up to speed?

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 10:14 PM
Wow, it lools like Kofi Annan believes in personal accountability.

Imagine if that kind of thing spread to the Bush administration?

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 10:29 PM
Whoa, musta missed this one. Care to get me up to speed?
Well, it wasn't that news giant, weisblogs.com, but the minor news agency from ABC reported earlier this month that Senior UN Officer, Didier Bourget took dozens of pictures as he attacked Congolese girls then shared them with his friends in the UN.

Some of the charges brought to light by Brian Ross of ABC included hundreds of underage girls impregnated by UN members, hundreds of rapes by blue helmets, and an internet pedophile ring run by Bourget.

Bourget is French, but shared his files with many of his Dutch co-workers who have also been brought up on allegations. However, once again, diplomatic immunity may come into play, and some people have quoted Bourget to admitting the crime but stating no one ever stopped him.

UN Sex Crimes in Congo (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/UnitedNations/story?id=489306&page=1)

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 10:32 PM
Wow, it lools like Kofi Annan believes in personal accountability.

Imagine if that kind of thing spread to the Bush administration?
LMAO!

You ever hear of Kojo Annan? Or Didier Bourgeut? When I see "accountability" held against them, I will take you seriously.

Telling a man charged with sexually assaulting a woman and a report that details the assualt on SEVERAL women that he merely has to leave his job is hardly "accountability". To suggest anything of the ilk shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 10:49 PM
I completely agree with you.
But my point is still valid.

However, I'm not sure about your use of the word "ilk".
I know what you meant, so you are light years ahead of some of my posts, but I still have to be a jacka$$ and point it out.

I think you understand.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 10:53 PM
I completely agree with you.
But my point is still valid.

However, I'm not sure about your use of the word "ilk".
I know what you meant, so you are light years ahead of some of my posts, but I still have to be a jacka$$ and point it out.

I think you understand.
No, your point is a tangent made to distract, as usual.

The point of this thread has nothing to do with GWB. Most of us can get through entire sentences without mentioning his name. Just because you are an obsessive does not mean the rest of us share that obsession.

The point is the UN is a farce and anyone using them as a resource of accountability should not be taken seriously.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:04 PM
OK, lets disband the UN.

I'm sure that it will have no negative imapact.

We have to restart the draft anyway if we are going to invade Syria.

The Bush republicans want America to be the worlds policeman, so who am I to complain?

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:05 PM
OK, lets disband the UN.

I'm sure that it will have no negative imapact.

We have to restart the draft anyway if we are going to invade Syria.

The Bush republicans want America to be the worlds policeman, so who am I to complain?
Again with GWB, how droll.

Saggysack
02-21-2005, 11:09 PM
Kofi Annan is a sinking ship.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:12 PM
Kofi Annan is a sinking ship.
He and his organization was the bastion of truth and justice just a couple of years ago for many of you here.

Saggysack
02-21-2005, 11:14 PM
He and his organization was the bastion of truth and justice just a couple of years ago for many of you here.

I still think the UN has a credible role in the world. It's all about leadership. If you have the right leadership, everything ese will follow.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:15 PM
When your ilk destroyed the League of Nations, it had a fantastic result didn't it?

I sure hope history repeats itself so I can say I told you so. NOT!

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:18 PM
I still think the UN has a credible role in the world. It's all about leadership. If you have the right leadership, everything ese will follow.
And I say as I did three years ago that anyone answering to the UN and being forced to kowtow to their wishes is merely bowing to Europe and what they believe is best for the world.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:22 PM
KC wrote: And I say as I did three years ago that anyone answering to the UN and being forced to kowtow to their wishes is merely bowing to Europe and what they believe is best for the world.

Well, doesn't Europe have a say in what happens in the "world"?

Are they incapable of having valid opinions?

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:25 PM
When your ilk destroyed the League of Nations, it had a fantastic result didn't it?

I sure hope history repeats itself so I can say I told you so. NOT!
You are one of the worst people I have ever read on this board regarding revisionist history.

The League of Nations dissolved a full year after the end of WWII. While it was in force, it put various smaller nations in precarious positions that ended up costing them millions of lives and total domination by other nations. The only major nation that did not join the League ended up avoided international conflict for almost an additional 3 years.

The Reduction and Limitations of Armaments in 1931 seriously impeded nations like Austria and Poland from ever defending themselves. And in 1935 the League gave the Saar territory illegally to Germany from France although Germany had pulled out of the League two years earlier.


You really need to find out more about history before speaking on it.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:26 PM
Well, doesn't Europe have a say in what happens in the "world"?

Are they incapable of having valid opinions?
Are they the only voice and should Europe speak for the US?

I am sure that many extremists such as yourself dream of a world government led by such thieving pompous asses as a UN. Personally, I believe we left Europe several hundred years ago just for that reason.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:31 PM
I think we are all neighbors, and we need to work together.

The conservatives are the ones that think the US should be able to act without consulting other nations.

And as far as history goes, the League was killed in the 1920's but died a slow lingering death.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:35 PM
I think we are all neighbors, and we need to work together.

The conservatives at the ones that think the US should be able to act without consulting other nations.

And as far as history goes, the League was killed in the 1920's but died a slow lingering death.
The League was not "killed" until 1931 at the very earliest when Germany pulled out. However, they continued to dupe smaller European nations with their supposed good will and power until they essentially gave Hitler a guidemap for his march through the nations mentioned earlier. Kind of like the UN is duping smaller nations like Congo and Bosnia today.

The UN is a joke. The fact that Bourget and Lubbers never have to face a jury and possible sentencing while Annan's son makes illegal millions from his dealings with Iraq are more than enough for me to say that they have no intent or goodwill for the nations they occupy or anyone outside of western Europe.

Lefty_the_Right
02-21-2005, 11:39 PM
Oh, so now you admit that it really "died " before WW2?

Well thanks for "revising" your history.

KCWolfman
02-21-2005, 11:40 PM
Oh, so now you admit that it really "died " before WW2?

Well thanks for "revising" your history.
Nope, I was merely stating the earliest you can make your silly argument is 1931, not the lie you originally stated. I would still disagree with that statement altogether. Nice diversion by the way.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 12:05 AM
So it wasn't the conservatives in America that brought down the League of Nations?

And it was an effective governing body up to and through WW2 as you said it was?

Well then I stand corrected.

Unless of couse it was the conservatives, like Prescott Bush who were making so much money off of Hitler's war machine that they didn't want anyone to interfere.

Because it wasn't the liberals that wanted to go to war with Germany, right?

KCWolfman
02-22-2005, 12:08 AM
So it wasn't the conservatives in America that brought down the League of Nations?

And it was an effective governing body up to and through WW2 as you said it was?

Well then I stand corrected.

Unless of couse it was the conservatives, like Prescott Bush who were making so much money off of Hitler's war machine that they didn't want anyone to interfere.

Because it wasn't the liberals that wanted to go to war with Germany, right?
Back to Bush again?

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 12:13 AM
There seems to be a pattern between the Bush family and profiting from war.

And destroying international and national institutions.

But you tell me, do you think the Bush family are big supporters of the UN?

KCWolfman
02-22-2005, 12:15 AM
There seems to be a pattern between the Bush family and profiting from war.

And destroying international and national institutions.

But you tell me, do you think the Bush family are big supporters of the UN?
Your story of Prescott was that he owned a single share of the stock. It has already been debunked - several times on this forum.

However, the discussion was the UN, not your continual obsession with all things Bush.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 12:21 AM
A single share of stock?

Somehow I think they needed a little more than that to charge him with Trading with the Enemy.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

KCWolfman
02-22-2005, 12:34 AM
A single share of stock?

Somehow I think they needed a little more than that to charge him with Trading with the Enemy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Here is the Federal Register regarding the issue

FEDERAL REGISTER
Saturday, November 7, 1942
[Vesting Order Number 248]

All of the Capital Stock of Union Banking Corporation and Certain Indebtedness Owing by It

Under the authority of the Trading with the enemy Act, as amended, and Executive Order No. 9095, as amended, and pursuant to law, the undersigned, after investigation, finding:
That the property described as follows:

All of the capital stock of Union Banking Corporation, a New York corporation, New York, New York, which is a business enterprise within the United States, consisting of 4,000 shares of $100 par value common capital stock, the names of the registered owners of which, and the number of shares owned by them respectively, are as follows:

Names -- Number of shares

R. Roland Harriman -- 3,991
Cornelius Lievense -- 4
Harold D. Pennington-- 1
Ray Morris -- 1
Prescott S. Bush -- 1
H.J. Kouwenhoven -- 1
Johann G. Groeninger -- 1

Total -- 4,000

All of which shares held for the benefit of Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart, N.V., Rotterdam, The Netherlands, which bank is owned or controlled by members of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and/or Hungary,

is property of nationals, and represents ownership of said business enterprise which is a national, of a designated enemy country or countries (Germany and/or Hungary); (b) That the property described as follows:

All right, title, interest and claim of any name or nature whatsoever of the aforesaid Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart, and August Thyssen-Bank, Berlin, Germany, and each of them, in and to all indebtedness, contingent or otherwise and whether or not matured, owing to them, or each of them by the said Union Banking Corporation, included but not limited to all security rights in and to any and all collateral for any or all of such indebtedness and the right to sue for and collect such indebtedness.

is an interest in the aforesaid business enterprise held by nationals of an enemy country or countries, and also is property within the United States owned or controlled by nationals of a designated enemy country or countries (Germany and/or Hungary);






At least you didn't use that lame "he helped Hitler and profited from labor camps" that many of your extremist buddies tried.

Lefty_the_Right
02-22-2005, 12:42 AM
This isn't about the stock he owned, but about the companies he was running that were doing business with Nazi Germany.

Why are you so hesitant to admit that?

Saggysack
02-22-2005, 12:44 AM
Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart, N.V., Rotterdam, The Netherlands, which bank is owned or controlled by members of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and/or Hungary,

Wasn't that bank controlled by the Nazi's after their occupation of Holland?

On another note, I'm still trying to understand the strategic advantage to the Nazi's of keeping Amsterdam intact but then bombing the hell out of Rotterdam during WWII. That has always perplexed me.

KCWolfman
02-22-2005, 12:46 AM
Wasn't that bank controlled by the Nazi's after their occupation of Holland?

On another note, I'm still trying to understand the strategic advantage to the Nazi's of keeping Amsterdam intact but then bombing the hell out of Rotterdam during WWII. That has always perplexed me.
Yes, but conspiracy theories always grab the extremists.

I had no idea you were a 1940s history afficianado.

Saggysack
02-22-2005, 01:14 AM
Yes, but conspiracy theories always grab the extremists.

I had no idea you were a 1940s history afficianado.

I grew up with a grandfather extremely proud of his service during WWII and Korea. I've heard stories since I was a teeny tot. So, yeah, it interests me. Moreso the American-Holland-Britian side though.

Last year when me and the wife went to Amsterdam we visited Anne Frank house and Dutch Resistance Museum(Verzetsmuseum). Next time we plan on hitting Camp Westerbork, Camp Amersfoort and the Airborne Museum in Oosterbeek. Was thinking of maybe hitting a train to Germany to see Bergen-Belsen, but, she has already been there. Leaning towards Auschwitz now. Still a big if. Fuggin Thayls is expensive for a high speed train ride.

KCWolfman
02-22-2005, 01:15 AM
I grew up with a grandfather extremely proud of his service during WWII and Korea. I've heard stories since I was a teeny tot. So, yeah, it interests me. Moreso the American-Holland-Britian side though.

Last year when me and the wife went to Amsterdam we visited Anne Frank house and Dutch Resistance Museum(Verzetsmuseum). Next time we plan on hitting Camp Westerbork, Camp Amersfoort and the Airborne Museum in Oosterbeek. Was thinking of maybe hitting a train to Germany to see Bergen-Belsen, but, she has already been there. Leaning towards Auschwitz now. Still a big if. Fuggin Thayls is expensive for a high speed train ride.
My pop served on Pork Chop Hill during both campaigns for the series of ranges.

Oh, and I am jealous as hell for your past trip and your upcoming planned.