Reforming the U.N.

Washington Post ^ | September 8, 2005 | unsigned editorial

[RKV]

IT'S RARE THAT doorstop-size reports appear just days before an opportunity to act on them, but that is what's just happened at the United Nations. The commission headed by Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has delivered a massive indictment of the United Nations' handling of Iraq's oil-for-food program just ahead of next week's summit at which U.N. reform will be on the agenda. When Mr. Volcker delivered his report to the Security Council yesterday, his call for change was echoed both by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and by ambassadors representing the United States and other member nations. There is no debate, in other words, as to whether reform is necessary.

[RKV]

There is so much wrong with this article that it deserves a point by point fisking. That said I can't do it at this time.

The WaPo editors are at it again. They bring up the issue of UN corruption so as to appear reasonable and current with the facts. Then the misdirect the conclusion by selective reporting. The money quote "... the United Nations' incompetence is hard-wired into the institution's DNA: the rules created by its member states that make it impossible for the secretary general and his top staff to hire good people, fire bad ones and move resources from unneeded programs to priority ones." The REAL problem with the UN is the corruption of the members, not the transparent greed of the employees. You cannot compare governments based on the consent of the citizens to those based on the tyrannical power of a minority. The voting system of the UN General Assembly fails to do that and is a priori irredeemable. Way past time for us to leave this den of thieves.

[Thrusher]

I say we file the United Nations under "League of Nations" in the history books and forget about it.

[EagleUSA]

I say we file the United Nations under "League of Nations" in the history books and forget about it.
-----
Equal treatment for equal performance -- but I would rather just throw them out of the US and withdraw our membership. It is time the UN and its anti-American ilk had an attitude adjustment.

[RKV]

Barf Alert! A three bagger ends the editorial - "If the United Nations is going to turn a corner, the member states that micromanage U.N. officials are going to have to rethink their approach. They won't ever be able to hold the secretary general accountable for mismanaged programs unless they first give him more responsibility." Why in God's name do we want to give an institution which has demonstrated it's corruption and incompetence more power?

[TWohlford]

"It is time the UN and its anti-American ilk had an attitude adjustment." I'm trying to remember the person... possibly during the Reagan years... who suggested strongly that the UN split its time between NYC and Moscow, and see which one they liked to live in.

[edcoil]

I have read that private citizens nor public american officials can even get on Kofi's private floor at the UN building.

I also read his bathrooms are gold like Saddams palaces

Anyone else remember these stories of how they use our money to enjoy themselves.

[jankp]

And that 'Reform' will only come from Caterpillar®.

[RKV]

10 for style points on your suggestion;>)

[DoraC]

Why should the UN be reformed? It isn't any good now, and it will never be any good. So just abolish it in a respectful manner.

[mj anderson]

Kofi said "Hell no, I won't go!"

Three weeks ago the Australian reported that Kofi Annan will step down at the close of next week's global bash--Annan will go for the "sake of the organization," even though he told CNN "Hell NO, I won't go!" when reporters told him of Senator Norm Coleman's call for Annan to step down as the first step toward reform.

Next week will be quite a side-show. The Millennium Summit +5 is billed as the largest gathering of heads-of-state ever in human history.

The focus is supposed to be the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that member states agreed to in 2000. These goals are essentially aimed at wealth transfers, via "poverty reduction" programs.

In fact, the programs for education, malaria control, developemnt etc. are merely new versions of oil-for-food, that is, MDGS are new opportunities for UN drones and their cronies in member nations to skim billions from the EU and USA..the EU officals do not mind fleecing their taxpayers, since they, the officials, share in the loot (as did France's BNP in oil-for-food debacle).

Meanwhile, the "outcome document" that heads-of -state are supposed to sign-- with all the florishes in front of cameras next week--has been ripped up by Bolton and company---750 changes to be exact--and the thieves are howling in protest...

Bolton wants MDGs downgraded to "good idea" status from "comittment" status that requires the US to allocate 0.07%
of GDP to poverty programs.

Bottom line is that the US under G. W. Bush has adpoted a version of the MDGs we agreed to in 2000. It uses a new foreign aid model of *targeted* aid. It is called the Millennium Challenge Account. Aid is not based on need alone, but rather on those nations that have or are moving toward key policy changes that are commensurate with
economic growth: a functioning judiciary, rule of law, transparent budget, prosecution of corruption, and religious freedom.

In a nutshell, the new US philosophy is to use US foreign aid to promote democratic governments--when there are more funtioning democracies on the planet, the world should be safer and saner. And not incidently, the UN will of necessiity be a different organization when democratic nations are the majority.

That said, there are strong reasons to expect that the UN reform when it comes will confine future programs to humanitarian aid, health and education programs since its "peacekeeping" efforts are little more that rape and pillage exercises. After all, the UN still has been unable to reach a consensus on a definition of "terrorism."

The original hope of the UN was to provide a place where nations would talk before they fired---understandable after two woorld wars....but we've matured --have learned that it is not possible to treat all member nations equally, since nations are NOT equal: some are vicious regimes that have no claim to the "community of nations" as they are by definition anti-communitarian.

MJ Anderson

[Lancer_N3502A]

Why don't we just get rid of it altogether?

[mj anderson]

We should--but we won't....we will try to let it die a natural death if at all possible for the sake of "world opinion." Soto voce, the US hopes that key players will see that the whole thing is a cesspool. Then certain nations will be "ripe" to hear a new suggestion:

A confederation of democracies, or a community of democracies could form to serve the shared needs of the developed nations and those developing in the democratic tradition. Such a allied configuration would be far more effective, yet still address the needs that globalization has brought us.