Kofi was SELECTED, NOT ELECTED.

He was selected to replace Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Boutros was so anti-american that the CLINTON administration said that the US would veto his second term.

It is traditional that the SecGen is rotated between the continents and that he serve two terms. Why, only santa knows.

The Frogs (French to those in Rio Linda) then announced that they would veto anyone who could not speak French. Why the French have a veto is also a mystery.

So, Kofi got the job because he was from Africa, and he (allegedly) can speak Frog.

Those are his only qualifications.

Oh, I forgot. He's corrupt as Judas Iscariot.

Thanks for raising the visibility of this important book, this important debate.

While it's difficult for us "straight-shooting, independent Americans" to accept, the bottom line of this article represents a sublime statement of how the world really works. It was American, straight-shootin' hubris that got us to where we're at in Iraq today. Unless, and until we can grow up, get beyond our adolescent, idealogical approach to complex issues, we'll continue to be out-flanked by the old world, real-politik approach Kofi brought to bear.

And, to my way of thinking, that is a VERY good thing!

What dismays me is the depth of anti-UN sentiment there is in the US, as evidenced by people like the appalling John Bolton who, right from the outset, made it clear that he despised the UN and all its works.

The US, as you might expect as a veto holder and major financial contributor, has more say in UN policy than any other single country but, as the article makes clear, all this to-ing and fro-ing between Annan and the US, modifying UN policy as necessary to keep the US on-side, can't be good for the UN, and sometimes not for the US. When things go America's way, the UN is 'right', when they don't, it's 'wrong'.

The EU, for example, has major economic clout but, as it consists of separate countries, cannot always act as a single coherent unit to influence the UN as much as the US can. We saw this over Iraq where the view of most of Europe, and most of the rest of the world and the UN itself, was strongly against invasion, but abetted primarily by Tony Blair, the Bushites were able to force the UN to a vote for war and, when it looked like this was going to fail, just ignored the UN and went to war anyway.

So the UN is always going to be pulled around by competing interests, with the US pulling harder than anybody else. I think the UN, corrupt and inefficient as it is in parts, nevertheless does a pretty good job in very difficult circumstances - we hear all about the bad things but rarely about the myriad projects around the world that the UN is running that improve people's lives. And as for Kofi Annan, he at least stopped the ship from sinking when it was under fierce attack, mainly from the US.

As evidenced by the two posts here so far (one from a Dittohead and one from a political Tourette's victim), the Bushophiles' main problem with Annan seems to be that he had the gall to be right about Iraq, while Bush and the Neocons were horribly, stupidly wrong. Since Bush and all of his decisions are anointed by God, Bush loyalists must attack anyone that has not clicked their heels in mindless obedience.

Yes, Kofi...a true original. "Quiet...tolerant...wily" indeed. He is all this and more. And though we may share the same view on that little American misadventure taking place in Iraq (albeit, for different reasons), he is a quiet, tolerant, wily, and murderous old hypocrite. Just take a glance around Africa when you have a moment.

Pardon my off-topic post (not that that stops certain other posters), but it would be fine with me if the Salon editors either removed posts like those by TeeHeeHee and Speaking Truth to Power, or began some other form of moderation in the letters.

I am curious as to the effect this would have on others who would post such high-noise/low-signal posts. Would it encourage a higher level of discourse (the reason I read Salon to begin with)? Or at least discourage name-calling and rants (like the prompt removal of graffiti discourages tagging)?

Foobar, while I find the comments from the Bush-worshipping Kofi-bashers to be as inept as you do, I don't think they should be removed. It's important to understand that most (but not all) of the criticism against Annan is ultimately hollow, and needs a good dose of childish playground invective to give it any sort of substance at all. People like TeeHeeHee and Speak Truth To Power illustrate this better than anyone else could. I say their comments are very valuable to truly illustrate the nature of this debate.

Ooops. You stumbled into the wrong room. The Garrison Keillor letters are over there.

Best to you in your monomania.

It's a bit ironic that the UN is so roundly criticized for corruption by governments and politcians whose own organizations and careers can only be described as odiferous. All governments are populated to various degrees by (a) opportunists, ideologues, criminals and sociopaths, (b) well-meaning but ineffectual bumblers (c) effective albeit limited bureaucrats and (d) inspired statesmen. The smallest group by far is (d); in my more cynical moments I fear (a) is the largest.

It baffles me that anyone could expect the UN to be a paragon of governmental virtue when it is comprised of representatives from nations whose native governing institutions range from enlightened to backward and relatively honest to irremediably corrupt.

Flawed and impotent though it may be, it represents at least an attempt to unite the peoples of the world for their mutual benefit. Were we to eliminate every political or governmental institution that is imperfect, there would be no government anywhere.

And as the situation in Iraq clearly demonstrates, the only thing worse than imperfect government is the lack of a government.