Posted on 10/18/2004 9:59:30 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
When you read the words "United Nations," what comes into your mind? Perhaps it's an august phrase, such as "international community," or a lofty image, such as the blue U.N. seal. In the first presidential debate, President Bush spoke of "going to the United Nations" as if it were a tiresome relative. ("I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations. I decided to go there myself.") Sen. John Kerry often talks about the United Nations as if it were a forgotten American ally. Yet the United Nations is not a person, or an ally, or a concept. Unlike, say, Britain or Sri Lanka, it isn't even a country with a government to which people are elected. Nor is it a company whose employees are accountable to shareholders. Instead, it is a collection of political appointees whose activities are, by ordinary government or business standards, subjected to shockingly little oversight.
Certainly, given how much importance is sometimes attributed to the United Nations, it is odd how little notice has been taken of what may be the worst U.N. scandal ever. Tucked away in arms inspector Charles Duelfer's report on Iraqi weapons -- this is the report mostly remembered for its "no weapons" conclusion -- are allegations that the United Nations' oil-for-food program had, at the time of the invasion of Iraq, degenerated almost entirely into a money-laundering scheme. Remember: This was a program set up for humanitarian reasons. It was supposed to help ordinary Iraqis obtain food and medicine, despite economic sanctions. But not only did it help generate some $11 billion that went directly into secret Iraqi government bank accounts -- that's how Saddam Hussein built all of those palaces -- it provided massive bribes, in the form of "oil vouchers," to a long list of Saddam's friends and advocates around the world.
A version of this list did appear in an Iraqi newspaper some months ago. Yet because Duelfer's version comes directly from the Iraqi oil ministry archives, it deserves scrutiny. While some of the oil companies on the list may have been legitimate purchasers of Iraqi oil, there are some more peculiar names as well: the Russian, Belarusan and Slovak Communist parties; the Nigerian ambassador to Iraq; the Iraqi-French Friendship Society; and one "Mr Sifan (UN)," who is none other than Benon Sevan, the U.N. official who was in charge of running the oil-for-food program itself.
It isn't easy to find a sufficiently startling domestic parallel to this revelation (though Sevan has denied the allegations against him). I suppose it's the rough equivalent of being told that the head of the IRS cheated on his taxes or that the attorney general has been convicted of armed robbery. Sevan was tasked, after all, with ensuring that the Iraqis sold only limited quantities of oil and that they imported only essential goods in exchange. If Sevan and others were receiving kickbacks, it could help explain why the sanctions had deteriorated so badly, why the "essential" imports included swimming pool equipment and four-color printers, why the Iraqis were able to continue looking for weapons components, and -- maybe -- why so many in the U.N. system were so upset about the invasion of Iraq.
But the United Nations is not a government with a court system attached to it, or an entrenched press corps, or a voting public. Committees can be set up to investigate U.N. wrongdoing -- the secretary general, Kofi Annan, has set up one to investigate the oil-for-food scandal -- but no one much monitors their progress, since it is in no one's interest to hold the United Nations accountable. Here's the evidence: Sevan's name appeared on the Iraqi list a week ago, yet it has inspired only a smattering of media attention and virtually no public discussion.
This negligence does not, I should add, mean that the United Nations should be kicked out of New York or that the United States should stop paying U.N. dues. An international organization can be a useful umbrella beneath which to hold peace talks, or a tool with which to distribute emergency food aid. Because it represents the only form of diplomatic influence for many smaller countries, it's a bit pointless to demonize the United Nations, since someone will always be needlessly offended.
But because it is accountable to no one, an international organization is never going to be good at managing large, long-term projects involving a lot of money or a lot of soldiers either. For that reason, the United Nations should never be confused with legitimately elected governments or America's historical allies. A decision to "send in the United Nations" is never going to be the full solution to any problem. And in light of what we are learning about the United Nations' appalling record in Iraq, it's pretty clear that calling upon "the United Nations" to save us in Iraq is tantamount to a cry of desperation.
Its quite easy and intellectually lazy for the GOP and conservatives to bash the UN. When it comes to actually doing something constructive about it all I see is Bush involving us more with that "organization."
I may be easy and intellectually lazy, but that doesn't make it wrong. The oil for food program should be enough for the U.S. to completely withdraw from the UN.
The President has marginalized the UN, even while challenging it to live up to its own ideals. His actions show that the UN has only itself to blame for its impotence. Now it's time to actually do something destructive about it.
So, write your Reps and Sens and ask/demand, that they back HR 1146!
The oil for food program should be enough for the U.S. to completely withdraw from the UN.
Yeah. Right. You interested in buying some bridges too?
The right way to reform the UN is to outlaw this criminal gang and imprison the spies and embezzlers who run it.
On British TV Kofi scoffed at the idea that France, Germany. and Russia had been bribed. "These are not banana republics", he said. It is obivious to me that the UN is run like a banana republic.
BTTT
So what is your recommendation? We've got serious talk about UN monitors watching the U.S. elections, meanwhile the organization has been proven over and over again as corrupt and anti-American. What would you have us do?
U.N oil-for-food program is directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers.
And I personally believe that some of this money helped finance the terrorists to do 9-11.
The Korean war, Vietnam, the United Nations are responsible for the deaths of some Americans.
Why we give money and trade with communist and socialist countries is beyond me.
Read Olly North's new book which says Russia, China, France, Germany were selling weapons to Iraq even after President Bush gave orders to go into Iraq a little over a year ago.
I think they have put United Nation personel in command structure of our military, judges, and departments of U.S. governments that make sure we go by international laws.
I never could understand why the UN has not stuck to what it does best...humanitarian aid, election help, peace keeping forces (that only would go to a country once all real fighting was over)...and let NATO grow to be the muscle when needed in the world. Maybe, we're finally headed that way. The Oil For Food scandal should put a damper on ever letting the UN do much in the future without being on a short leash.
Since the majority of UN member nations are not free countries, why do free countries suborn themselves to the will of dictators, murderers, and socialists?
The US does not belong in the UN. Let it wither and die.
Without the U.S. the U.N. isn't at all ethical. I say we withdraw from the U.N.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.