Content deleted Content added
Daan Schrama (talk | contribs) |
US vs UN comments |
||
Line 133:
==POV?==
It is very easy to get a bunch of negative quots about a politician who served for ten years at a responsible position as that of Annans. I would prefer if there is more attention for the character and political goals of Annan. On the television i heard about Annan that he is primarily concerned in making life better for all humans. He has sleepless nights about the disasters that occur frequently and tries his best to help everybody victim of disasters. Anan is focused at reforming the UN, so the UN is better prepared to make an end to poverty and war. I don't know much about him, to be honest, that is why i didn't edited this information on this page. This article is so negative about Annan that it is mean. Perhaps it could be that some of the allegations are true, but still Annan is a symbol for the things he stands for and he is our representative. The only person where the word our accounts to all people. Could it be possible to make this article more positive?--[[User:Daanschr|Daanschr]] 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
==US vs UN==
American public opinion of Annan is not driven by attitudes about his reforms, of which most of the public in any country know little if anything about. Reforms of any kind are generally viewed as negative rather than positive in that their existence is a result of a problem or failing. In that regard it is not politically astute to label anything as a "reform" unless the problem situation clearly evolved under an opponent you have replaced -- it is much better to instead label it as an "initiative" as the latter term does not carry the negative connotation of the former.
What American opinion is driven by is perceived effectiveness and fairness in which regard the UN and Annan have achieved a monumental marketing failure. Public statements made by Annan and his subordinates need to be structured to elicit the desired effect from the public, not simply convey a set of facts or opinion -- the art of diplomacy is to be able to sugar coat an ugly but true statement so that your opponent will embrace your desired outcome rather than oppose it. The defeatest statement made by Mark Brown should never have been made in that light and was a serious tactical blunder. Given the emphasis on winning in American culture, a defeatest statement or attitude is rarely respected or embraced.
| |||