'Evil' name calling like declaring war: Annan

[Kilgor]

United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan said on Monday that labelling an enemy "evil" is akin to declaring war.

"Thinking of people as 'evil' can lead us to become evil or, at least to do evil, ourselves," he said at the 35th National Conference of the Trinity Institute of the Episcopal Church.

"It is the moral equivalent of declaring war."

Mr Annan did not mention President George W Bush's frequent use of the word to refer to US enemies, most famously in his 2002 State of the Union address, which debuted his "axis of evil," made up of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

"There is something about the word, when we apply it to another human being - and more especially to a group of human beings - that makes me uncomfortable," he told the group.

"It is too absolute. It seems to cut off any possibility of redemption, of dialogue or even coexistence."

"Whatever we think about individuals, we must not allow ourselves to generalise and attribute evil characteristics to whole groups of people."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1100973.htm



The UN makes me wannta puke.

:cantbeli:

[seruriermarshal]

UN only a sh*t who help axis of evil .

:fork:

[Uninen]

You should read and listen. What his saying is true and wise.

"It is too absolute. It seems to cut off any possibility of redemption, of dialogue or even coexistence."
:roll:

Oh and btw, every time you heard words evil or terrorist, they never come out of unbiassed mouth, these are the propaganda words. Just like freedom and justice, cause in real world none of these things exists. :|

[Kilgor]

What would you call the current political and human rights situation in north korea ?

Evil is a pretty accurate word

[perdurabo]

What would you call the current political and human rights situation in north korea ?

Evil is a pretty accurate word
does this mean that al n.koreans are evil? NO
doest this means that n.korea gov. is ****ed up? YES


someone needs go back too school.
Annans words are wise. UN maybe isn't perfect but its better than nothing and UN isn't US bich that do whatever US want's from them. :bash: :bash:

[Fox2]

Oh and btw, every time you heard words evil or terrorist, they never come out of unbiassed mouth, these are the propaganda words. Just like freedom and justice, cause in real world none of these things exists. :|

In the real world, the word unbiased does not exist. Everyone has a bias. There is no such thing as an unbiased mouth or person, even the Secretary General of the UN.

I'd like you to explain how the words "terrorist" and "evil" are just propaganda and do not exist.

Moral relativism at its best.

[Fox2]

does this mean that al n.koreans are evil? NO
doest this means that n.korea gov. is f*** up? YES


No one said all North Koreans are evil. The North Korean government is evil, as you said.


Annans words are wise. UN maybe isn't perfect but its better than nothing and UN isn't US bich that do whatever US want's from them. :bash: :bash:

If they want to separate themselves from the US in the political spectrum, fine. Perhaps they should get the hell out of New York then.

[Trident-za]

I need a brief education here, since I know nothing about North Korea.... what exactly makes the N. Korean government evil?

As I said, I don't know what they do or don't do, but you make it sound like they are all satanistic cannabals or something.

Note: I'm not saying they aren't evil... just holding off judgement until someone lets me know about all the evil things they are doing....

P.S. I grew up in an environment where the government continually told us the ANC was "evil" and "against God" etc. etc. Well, they run our country now.... and I don't paticularly like them, but they aren't evil as far as I can tell.

[afrographX]

does this mean that al n.koreans are evil? NO
doest this means that n.korea gov. is f*** up? YES


No one said all North Koreans are evil. The North Korean government is evil, as you said.


Annans words are wise. UN maybe isn't perfect but its better than nothing and UN isn't US bich that do whatever US want's from them. :bash: :bash:

If they want to separate themselves from the US in the political spectrum, fine. Perhaps they should get the hell out of New York then.


rofl Isn't it the usa who separate themself from the UN. The idea of the UN is to fix conflicts with the help of this institution. If the US had attach great importance to this thing they wouldn't have started the iraq war without a UN - resolution.

In fact the USA don't WANT to work together with the UN because they fear that they would have to give up a certain amount on power and that their right of self-determination in foreign politics would be restricted.

[Fox2]

Isn't it the usa who separate themself from the UN. The idea of the UN is to fix conflicts with the help of this institution. If the US had attach great importance to this thing they wouldn't have started the iraq war without a UN - resolution.

I was referring to the way the UN and some European nations are distancing themselves in any way possible from the US. Because, obviously, as you see even on this forum, any country that is seen as being friendly to the US is automatically "the US's bitch" or "the US's lapdog." They did this even before the conflict in Iraq.

This is a response to the US leadership's "axis of evil" speeches, and naming certain countries as "evil." Kofi is taking a jab at those phrases with a dose of moral relativism.

Like I said, if the UN are so against anything United States, then they should get off sovereign US soil. (incase you didn't know, the UN is headquarted in New York).


In fact the USA don't WANT to work together with the UN because they fear that they would have to give up a certain amount on power and that their right of self-determination in foreign politics would be restricted.

The reasoning there is because the UN is slow, bureacratic, and to some extent, corrupt. (see: Oil for Food program)

I don't mean to offend anyone with any of this. I am just getting a bit miffed with this political soundbyte game Annan seems to be playing.

[citizen-k]

****en cloud monkey

[Bootneck]

Here you go Trident-ZA:


Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag

A series of shocking personal testimonies is now shedding light on Camp 22 - one of the country's most horrific secrets

Antony Barnett
Sunday February 1, 2004
The Observer

In the remote north-eastern corner of North Korea, close to the border of Russia and China, is Haengyong. Hidden away in the mountains, this remote town is home to Camp 22 - North Korea's largest concentration camp, where thousands of men, women and children accused of political crimes are held.
Now, it is claimed, it is also where thousands die each year and where prison guards stamp on the necks of babies born to prisoners to kill them.

Over the past year harrowing first-hand testimonies from North Korean defectors have detailed execution and torture, and now chilling evidence has emerged that the walls of Camp 22 hide an even more evil secret: gas chambers where horrific chemical experiments are conducted on human beings.

Witnesses have described watching entire families being put in glass chambers and gassed. They are left to an agonising death while scientists take notes. The allegations offer the most shocking glimpse so far of Kim Jong-il's North Korean regime.

Kwon Hyuk, who has changed his name, was the former military attaché at the North Korean Embassy in Beijing. He was also the chief of management at Camp 22. In the BBC's This World documentary, to be broadcast tonight, Hyuk claims he now wants the world to know what is happening.

'I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber,' he said. 'The parents, son and and a daughter. The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing.'

Hyuk has drawn detailed diagrams of the gas chamber he saw. He said: 'The glass chamber is sealed airtight. It is 3.5 metres wide, 3m long and 2.2m high_ [There] is the injection tube going through the unit. Normally, a family sticks together and individual prisoners stand separately around the corners. Scientists observe the entire process from above, through the glass.'

He explains how he had believed this treatment was justified. 'At the time I felt that they thoroughly deserved such a death. Because all of us were led to believe that all the bad things that were happening to North Korea were their fault; that we were poor, divided and not making progress as a country.

'It would be a total lie for me to say I feel sympathetic about the children dying such a painful death. Under the society and the regime I was in at the time, I only felt that they were the enemies. So I felt no sympathy or pity for them at all.'

His testimony is backed up by Soon Ok-lee, who was imprisoned for seven years. 'An officer ordered me to select 50 healthy female prisoners,' she said. 'One of the guards handed me a basket full of soaked cabbage, told me not to eat it but to give it to the 50 women. I gave them out and heard a scream from those who had eaten them. They were all screaming and vomiting blood. All who ate the cabbage leaves started violently vomiting blood and screaming with pain. It was hell. In less than 20 minutes they were quite dead.'

Defectors have smuggled out documents that appear to reveal how methodical the chemical experiments were. One stamped 'top secret' and 'transfer letter' is dated February 2002. The name of the victim was Lin Hun-hwa. He was 39. The text reads: 'The above person is transferred from ... camp number 22 for the purpose of human experimentation of liquid gas for chemical weapons.'

Kim Sang-hun, a North Korean human rights worker, says the document is genuine. He said: 'It carries a North Korean format, the quality of paper is North Korean and it has an official stamp of agencies involved with this human experimentation. A stamp they cannot deny. And it carries names of the victim and where and why and how these people were experimented [on].'

The number of prisoners held in the North Korean gulag is not known: one estimate is 200,000, held in 12 or more centres. Camp 22 is thought to hold 50,000.

Most are imprisoned because their relatives are believed to be critical of the regime. Many are Christians, a religion believed by Kim Jong-il to be one of the greatest threats to his power. According to the dictator, not only is a suspected dissident arrested but also three generations of his family are imprisoned, to root out the bad blood and seed of dissent.

With North Korea trying to win concessions in return for axing its nuclear programme, campaigners want human rights to be a part of any deal. Richard Spring, Tory foreign affairs spokesman, is pushing for a House of Commons debate on human rights in North Korea.

'The situation is absolutely horrific,' Spring said. 'It is totally unacceptable by any norms of civilised society. It makes it even more urgent to convince the North Koreans that procuring weapons of mass destruction must end, not only for the security of the region but for the good of their own population.'

Mervyn Thomas, chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said: 'For too long the horrendous suffering of the people of North Korea, especially those imprisoned in unspeakably barbaric prison camps, has been met with silence ... It is imperative that the international community does not continue to turn a blind eye to these atrocities which should weigh heavily on the world's conscience.'


I saw horror tests: defector

By Barbara Demick
Los Angeles Times
Seoul
March 4, 2004

A senior North Korean chemist who defected to South Korea two years ago says he saw political prisoners writhing in agony as the regime tested chemical weapons on humans.

In one experiment it took three hours for two men to die, the chemist said.

Although the chemist's information is dated - he says he saw one experiment in 1979 and heard about others until the mid-1990s - his statements mark the first time a high-level scientist from North Korea has spoken out about human experimentation.

Similar allegations have been made before - just last month, papers said to have been smuggled out of North Korea appeared to show that prisoners were sent to a chemical complex for gas experiments in 2002. But many of the prior reports were made by former political prisoners and guards whose credibility was questioned.

The chemist said fear of retribution against family members still in North Korea had kept him from speaking out but that he had decided to break his silence because of the need for the world to know. He asked that his name not be published.

"It is not easy for me to speak about this because I am a criminal myself," said the chemist, a man in his 50s, at the beginning of a halting and emotional three-hour interview arranged by a US-based human-rights group.

He said the experiment he witnessed took place at a military prison near Pyongsong, 25 kilometres north of the capital, Pyongyang. At the time, he was a PhD candidate. He was invited to watch the experiment because his dissertation concerned the chemical compounds being tested, cyanide and ortho-nitrochlorylbenzyne.

The chemist said the prison was known to house political prisoners, kept in stacked cages "like rabbit hutches". He said the two men in the experiment, unshaven and emaciated, "looked barely human". They were brought to the chamber in wheelchairs.

He said the men were tested separately in a chamber with a large window allowing scientists and officials to watch. It had bright lights, a speaker system that allowed the scientists to clearly hear the prisoners' screams and a nozzle to spray the chemicals.

"One man was scratching desperately," the chemist said. "He scratched his neck, his chest... He was covered in blood.

"I kept trying to look away. I knew how toxic these chemicals were in even small doses.

"It was horrible. They were screaming and yelling ... They seemed to develop some superhuman strength before they died. I kept thinking: It is not so simple to kill a human being after all."

His voice cracking, he added: "This is not something you want to remember."

North Korea denied as recently as last month that it had gassed prisoners, and it was not possible to confirm the chemist's account. Other defectors have been known to exaggerate North Korean atrocities to obtain money or win asylum for their families; however, several people active in the human rights field said they found the chemist and his story believable.

Seoul-based human rights investigator Kim Sang Hun said the chemist was the most credible witness on the issue of human experimentation so far.

Jae-Joong Nam, president of the Aegis Foundation, a human rights organisation in Ashburn, Virginia, that arranged the interview, said: "He is a very credible person. He has a PhD. He was a respected scientist. His story is very consistent."


Evil exists.

[ibstolidude]

You should read and listen. What his saying is true and wise.

"It is too absolute. It seems to cut off any possibility of redemption, of dialogue or even coexistence."
:roll:

Oh and btw, every time you heard words evil or terrorist, they never come out of unbiassed mouth, these are the propaganda words. Just like freedom and justice, cause in real world none of these things exists. :|
except when you ref. the US as evil empire, right?

- propogandist! :D

[Kenshin]

You should read and listen. What his saying is true and wise.

"It is too absolute. It seems to cut off any possibility of redemption, of dialogue or even coexistence."
:roll:

Oh and btw, every time you heard words evil or terrorist, they never come out of unbiassed mouth, these are the propaganda words. Just like freedom and justice, cause in real world none of these things exists. :|

tsk tsk Poor you...

[Trident-za]

Thanks, Bootneck. Interesting (and nasty) stuff. And yeah, I do know that evil exists :)

[scm77]

UN is evil. We should go to war with them for violating their own sanctions with the oil for food program and them excepting kickbacks. :bash:

[Loco]

May be it´s not a queston about if "evil" is accurate or not, but a question of being diplomatic and not simplistic. Lately some prime ministers and republic presidents are using a vocabulary that would be good in a tabern discussion, and I think this isn´t good. The word "evil" doesn´t admit tinges: is white or black, and life isn´t like this. When you call to anything or anybody "evil" you yourself should be an inmaculated person, and the people who just now are calling "evil" to others aren´t inmaculated.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

"Good" and "evil" are easy concepts for even a child to grasp. But societies have different ideas about what's good & evil.

What the UN is saying is that they simply don't agree with the US definitions of good an evil. And neither do some posters here. That's fine, at least we know where you're coming from.

Hitler & I for example, would not agree on what's good or evil. The same for Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. These people did not see themselves as evil. They believed they were doing something positive - "good". While most in the west surely recognize it as evil.

While name calling may not be the most productive thing in the world, if we cannot even any longer recognize & agree on what is "evil", then all is lost.

So what's to be done when the earth's largest governmental organization cannot even decide what's good or evil? That all behaviors must be accomodated? How can they claim the moral high ground - to commit troops to battle - to enforce peace - when they cannot even be sure which behavior set is the right/good one?

By making a statement like that, Annan has completely invalidated the UN's reason for existing.

[Loco]

By making a statement like that, Annan has completely invalidated the UN's reason for existing.
2Sheds_Jackson, this is exactly the problem I see in people who only look at life in white and black, but of course is my humble opinion, but what I´m amazed is that people who like talking of the good and the evil change in a very easy way their points of view depending if the "evil" suddenly is good for their pocket. I mean that of course I think there´re evil people, you talked of Hitler and I agree, but there´re other people that only are bad to us just in this moment but not yesterday and depending of circumstances, not to everybody like the case of Hitler.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

By making a statement like that, Annan has completely invalidated the UN's reason for existing.
2Sheds_Jackson, this is exactly the problem I see in people who only look at life in white and black, but of course is my humble opinion, but what I´m amazed is that people who like talking of the good and the evil change in a very easy way their points of view depending if the "evil" suddenly is good for their pocket. I mean that of course I think there´re evil people, you talked of Hitler and I agree, but there´re other people that only are bad to us just in this moment but not yesterday and depending of circumstances, not to everybody like the case of Hitler.

Well, my point is that Hitler was not bad to everybody. If Nazi Germany existed today, we'd have the UN telling us we mustn’t label them as "evil". We'd be asked to see their side of what they’re doing. There would be endless meetings, Herr Hitler on the TV explaining his side of why Germany's borders need to be expanded.

Hitler was wildly popular in Germany - the people loved him. Surely all those Germans didn't believe he was evil, did they?

The UN security council would fail to come to agreement because Nazi Germany would be exerting it's influence (and money) to get members to vote in their favor. We would once again witness the UN's well earned reputation for inaction.

Had we had this mindset then - that nearly any action or set of moral values can be accomodated, I doubt anybody could have stopped them before it was too late.

(not a knock against Germany, guys...just giving an example)

[afrographX]

I was referring to the way the UN and some European nations are distancing themselves in any way possible from the US. Because, obviously, as you see even on this forum, any country that is seen as being friendly to the US is automatically "the US's bitch" or "the US's lapdog." They did this even before the conflict in Iraq.

Like I said, if the UN are so against anything United States, then they should get off sovereign US soil. (incase you didn't know, the UN is headquarted in New York).



The UN are not against the US. It's problematic to speak of 'the UN' as one person. Because if you say UN you mostly mean the Security council of the UN, the authority which actually determines the course of the UN. This council consists of the five permanent members of the UN (China, France, Russia, UK, US) and 10 countries elected by the General Asembly for a two-year term.

So the UN(security council) are in fact a mirror of the most powerfull nations + a small spectrum of the other members (so reprsentative of the international community, although one may argue the western dominance in the council)

If you say 'the UN are so against anything United States', I assume you mean the blocking of the iraq resolution by the security council. You can not make the UN responsible for that, but the different nations who decided on that and the very, very, very poor evidences Colin Powell presented.

The example of the resolution which supported the 'fight against terrorism' is a proof that the UN and as such the international community was willing to work together with the US.



This is a response to the US leadership's "axis of evil" speeches, and naming certain countries as "evil." Kofi is taking a jab at those phrases with a dose of moral relativism.


This phrasing of the 'axis of evil' is very superficial and just attempts to put all current nations, seen as enemy of the US into one single, pracitcal phrasing. In order to facilitate the creation of an image of THE enemy.
If you would employ the scale used for the 'axis of evil' to other states, you would have to add nations as pacistan, saudi-arabia, most of the states in central asia and so on. What all these ones have in common is that they have dictatoships and that they are not democratic and do not respect human rights.



The reasoning there is because the UN is slow, bureacratic, and to some extent, corrupt. (see: Oil for Food program)


How effective the UN is, depends on the willingness of its members to act. I don't think many states would protest if the USA would suggest some serious reasonable improvements to the UN. Only judging by this incident of the 'Oil for Food program' would be the same as saying all american troops in iraq are doing the same as the mps in that prison.

[usa320]

The UN screwed many countries out of the oil-for-food program, giving the cash to saddam instead. Unfortunately congress cant investigate because Kofi's aides wont turn over documents. Apparently its "their private affairs". As long as the UN offices are in New York, these jerkoffs need to do what ever the **** we tell em. Just because they are the UN doesnt mean they dont have to follow American laws and cooperate with American criminal investigations., so i think they should hand over the documents, or get booted the hell out. I dont know why we let the UN stay here anyway. Send em to Sweden or France.

[5jumpchump]

You should read and listen. What his saying is true and wise.

"It is too absolute. It seems to cut off any possibility of redemption, of dialogue or even coexistence."
:roll:

Oh and btw, every time you heard words evil or terrorist, they never come out of unbiassed mouth, these are the propaganda words. Just like freedom and justice, cause in real world none of these things exists. :|

No justice huh ? I remember the US bringing justice to Hitlers door step rofl

[2Sheds_Jackson]

afrographX - some good points. But I must say about the UN that (in)actions speak louder than words. As a body, they are hopelessly stymied, though it is surely not for the lack of efforts of some members. The UN's inactions wind up painting the entire organization with the same brush.

Colin Powell's job was an impossible one. He was outright lied to by another member of the security council (France) regarding a pivotal, key resolution vote. How can we make progress in this environment? The security council had no chance of taking action against Iraq - there was too much at stake, too much to be discovered of illicit involvement of member nations- for that to happen.

Syria on the security council? They're on the list of terror supporting nations. I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists. Now we're supposed to sit down in business suits & deal with them on equal footing. Ak! (again, we musn't point out right vs. wrong, good vs. evil..who's to say if terrorism is wrong)

usa320 - now now, we don't want to kick them out of the sandbox just 'cause they wont play nice! Yeah, I'll admit the oil-for-Saddam program was a corrupt mess, but we can't barge in there & jack up the UN. It wouldn't look good on the evening news (though part of me would love to see a hysterical Kofi Annan using his body to block access to his file cabinet while shouting "gentlemen!! gentlemen!!!"