Steyn on just about everything wrong with the UN

[HOZ]

Would you trust these men with $64bn of your cash? Of course not

May have to register to read.

A gimpse...

If Paul Volcker's preliminary report on Oil-for-Food dealt with the organisation's unofficial interests, the UN's other report of the week accurately captured their blithe insouciance to their official one. As you may have noticed, the good people of Darfur have been fortunate enough not to attract the attention of the arrogant cowboy unilateralist Bush and have instead fallen under the care of the Polly Toynbee-Clare Short-approved multilateral compassion set. So, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to persuade the UN to set up a committee to look into what's going on in Darfur. They've just reported back that it's not genocide.

That's great news, isn't it? For as yet another Annan-appointed UN committee boldly declared in December: "Genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated." So thank goodness this isn't genocide. Instead, it's just 70,000 corpses who all happen to be from the same ethnic group – which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, and Polly and Clare don't have to worry their pretty little heads about it.

[HOZ]

Steyn on the Iraqi vote. Great stuff! May have to register to read.

Iraq is now the home of the brave – and soon the free

A snippet...

Driving along and twiddling the radio dial on Sunday night, I caught this tantalising snippet: "In Madrid, demonstrators took to the streets to protest the Iraqi election." I'm fairly blasé about European decadence these days - I barely raised an eyebrow at the news that an unemployed waitress in Berlin faces the loss of her welfare benefits because she's refused to take a job as a prostitute in a legalised brothel - but, even so, it surely couldn't be true that the Spaniards so objected to the Iraqi election that they were protesting about it.

But apparently so. Hard to tell how many there were from the Reuters snap: it was shot fairly close up, the way sympathetic photographers do when they want to make a rally look bigger than it is.

But nevertheless there they were, prosperous, well-dressed Spaniards waving placards showing US missiles and dollar bills going into the ballot box and noisily objecting to the fraud of a so-called election held under American occupation.

[Savvy27]

He is a good writer. From the two articles you posted it appears that he manages to avoid the sweeping generalizations and absolutes that plague most right-wing authors.

I like the point he made about Iraqi's in Syria being able to vote for the leadership, but Syrian's in Syria have no choice. It's an interesting idea, hopefully it will lead to people in surrounding nations demanding their own democracies.

Obviously he's not a big fan of the Spainiards, but it is curious that they would protest a democratic election. Good articles.

[HOZ]

Michael Gove of The Times on the Iraqi election

A beacon is lit in Iraq. But not in your names, Robin, Douglas and the BBC

WHO WON the Iraqi elections? The formal counting won’t be over for days. But the result’s already clear. Iraq won.
And who lost? Well, a full list would take up all this column, but, for starters, I would say that the people who seemed a little glum yesterday morning include Saddam Hussein, Robin Cook, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, George Galloway, Osama bin Laden, Douglas Hurd, Bashar al-Assad, Menzies Campbell, Jacques Chirac, BBC News and Current Affairs, Robert Fisk and Sean Penn.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Savvy27@Feb 6 2005, 10:04 AM
He is a good writer. From the two articles you posted it appears that he manages to avoid the sweeping generalizations and absolutes that plague most right-wing authors.

I like the point he made about Iraqi's in Syria being able to vote for the leadership, but Syrian's in Syria have no choice. It's an interesting idea, hopefully it will lead to people in surrounding nations demanding their own democracies.

Obviously he's not a big fan of the Spainiards, but it is curious that they would protest a democratic election. Good articles.

He DOES? I thought I found a few 'sweeping generalizatins', but I suppose you have to dig for them... though they seemed obvious.

The first is that the author provides two (2) examples of UN issues (Darfur and Oil for Food), ignoring any other event, scenario, and action the UN has taken over the last 60 years, from Cyprus to East Timor, from UNICEF to UNAIDS. Basing his criticism off of two single issues and judging the organization by these standards would be like taking Bush's lie about WMD's and judging his administration solely by this lie... which many do. Is it right? No, of course not. Judgement of both UN and Bush should be aggregate, not picking out a single fault or two and using that as 'conclusive' evidence that the organization/administration 'doesnt' work' or is 'fundamentally corrupt'.

That's why Washington has no interest in joining Gordon Brown's newly announced Cash-for-Guilt programme, under which the Chancellor (or, to be more precise, you) has agreed to improve the Afro-kleptocracy's cash flow by transferring 10 per cent of its debt burden to the United Kingdom – a perfect example of the malign combination of empty European gesture-politics and Third World larceny that's been the default mode of progressive transnationalism for far too long. By contrast, consider the splendid John Howard. In announcing Australian's $1 billion tsunami aid package, he was careful to emphasise that he wouldn't be wiring it via the estate of Benon Sevan's late auntie.

The author appears to consider 3rd world debt relief as a a victory for the 'Afro-kleptocracy' in a 'cash-for-guilt' program. Clearly the author doesn't believe in assisting the poorer nations... I'm sure he/she thinks Africa is in trouble solely of its own actions, with no outside assistance.

In other words, the system didn't fail. This is the transnational system, working as it usually works, just a little more so. One of the reasons I'm in favour of small government is because big government tends to be remote government, and remote government is unaccountable, and, as a wannabe world government, the UN is the remotest and most unaccountable of all. If the sentimental utopian blather ever came true and we wound up with one "world government", from an accounting department point of view, the model will be Nigeria rather than New Hampshire.

The author points out that the UN system appears to be geared towards international embezzlement, and little else. He wishes the 'utopian blather' would go away, replaced by a new world of small government where everyone is happy and no one steals from anyone (utopia anyone?).

Corruption is rife in all world governments, from the UN, to the US, to the former Iraq. Hell, US citizens were making boatloads of money from the corrupt oil-for-food program.

How does pointing out two fairly current examples of corruption condemn the _massive_ presence of the UN at many different levels of society and in many different regions of the world, and all the good things its done? I won't even get into the very obvious fact that the UN doesn't act 'unilaterally', but _must_ do what its members require of it. The UN doesn't choose whether or not to go into Darfur, its member-states do... especially those on the Security Council. If you've got a beef with the fact that the UN didnt' go into Sudan with guns blazing, talk to the state's responsible, cause Kofi sure wasn't.

I suppose the best way to go is boycott the Halloween donation this year to UNICEF, and feel good that your money isn't stolen, as this author seems to guarentee. Sheesh.

[Agamemnon]

As for the Iraqi article, this guy more or less sounds like Al Bundy shooting from the hip on what's right and wrong with the world, with evidence captured from all the events he's personally witnessed. Now because there are Spaniards (some, a minority) protesting against the election in Iraq (probably for anti-US reasons rather than anti-Iraqi, but the author doesnt' dare go into that). The author doesn't even point out that some Spaniards support the war (they sent troops, they've done more than... Canada), but rather paints them all as cowards, suggesting that "in Europe you can find a few Spaniards brave enough to go into the streets and sneer at Iraqi voters and the moronic Bush, but mustering the courage for anything else is harder." Cause the Spanish have no experience with terrorism, and have clearly wilted in the face of terrorist pressure.

The Western media might want to rethink their basic narrative: the Iraqi people just took a great leap forward. It's Europe that's looking more like an unwinnable quagmire.

What drivel.

[Claeren]

I wouldn't waste your breath arguing too long with Hoz if i were you.... :P


The USofA has ALREADY literally LOST billions of dollars in Iraq. Money that is simply gone. Before even looking at the amount of money embezzeled semi-legally through questionable contracting of major transnationals by the American government (the ties between them far exceeding ethical bounds and 1000x's worse then any corruption in the UN), i think it is obvious that the American government is as bad if not worse then the UN. Considering he is so worried about the UN being so bad for the world, it is most obvious that the alternative (some absolute American centralized aid giver?) is far worse....

He seems to argue that between two inefficient systems of aide and world governence the USA is the better choice. Unfortunatly while his logic is correct the lesser of two evils is the UN, particularily one supported by America instead of stymied by it....

But as you said Agamemnon, Hoz and this writer see some conservative utopia that just doesn't exist, and most ironic, it is that idea of a utopian vision that is THE major critisism they have with liberals/UN supporters...

Claeren.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Claeren@Feb 6 2005, 05:20 PM
Before even looking at the amount of money embezzeled semi-legally through questionable contracting of major transnationals by the American government (the ties between them far exceeding ethical bounds and 1000x's worse then any corruption in the UN), i think it is obvious that the American government is as bad if not worse then the UN. Considering he is so worried about the UN being so bad for the world, it is most obvious that the alternative (some absolute American centralized aid giver?) is far worse....

This is really what gets me the most. I don't mind admitting that corruption exists in the UN, and Kofi may have (probably had) a hand in it, as long as we're readily admitting other, equal or worse transgressions by other figures/entities at the same time. I've found many people that would condemn the UN for this 'graf' and demand its destruction, but to treat the US for the same guilt the same way would be unthinkable.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Shouldn't the UN and the US Government be evaluated independently of each other?

I would think so.

I think it speaks volumes that you come to the defense of the UN, Claeren, not by refuting the arguments presented against them or by presenting positive aspects of the UN, but by attacking the US government and labelling it far worse.

By your logic, since the US is so corrupt, it's alright for the UN to be somewhat less corrupt?

[Agamemnon]

Shouldn't the UN and the US Government be evaluated independently of each other?

I would think so.

Good enough, but if you see each agency through very different coloured lenses, isn't that a problem? Shouldn't turning a blind eye to one and exposing the other be discouraged as well? I think its about standards more than trying to tie the two together.

I think it speaks volumes that you come to the defense of the UN, Claeren, not by refuting the arguments presented against them or by presenting positive aspects of the UN, but by attacking the US government and labelling it far worse.

By your logic, since the US is so corrupt, it's alright for the UN to be somewhat less corrupt?

I'd suggest Claeren was possibly trying to point out hypocracy in identifying and condemning UN corruption while (potentially) ignoring US corruption. I'd agree that both agencies are rife with the stuff, and both should be heavily examined and probably reformed.

I suppose as long as both sides are represented, then there's not an issue here.

I hope anyone who made money off the Oil for Food scam goes to jail, plain and simple. If Khofi's hands are too dirty, he goes too. I'd like the same treatment for US administration misdeeds.

Again, I just think its all about setting the same standards for international administration/organizations.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Well, Ag, your argument had nothing to do with the US Gov't, so why now do you come to the defense of Claeren?

Simply because I am 'from the other side'?

I don't get it, but oh well.

It seems this forum will remain polarized and nobody will disagree with anyone who historically shares the same point of view.

Tragic.

I, for one, don't change glasses. Ever.

Claeren obviously does, he just did it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Feb 6 2005, 06:07 PM
Well, Ag, your argument had nothing to do with the US Gov't, so why now do you come to the defense of Claeren?

Simply because I am 'from the other side'?

I don't get it, but oh well.

It seems this forum will remain polarized and nobody will disagree with anyone who historically shares the same point of view.

Tragic.

I, for one, don't change glasses. Ever.

Claeren obviously does, he just did it.

Well, I agreed with some of the things he said, and this is a discussion board, and i'm eager to discuss... put it together I guess.

Its too bad that you're so easily discouraged out of the conversation, I thought things were pretty civil and productive, and I usually quite enjoy the back and forth on these issues, as they educate me and those who read them.

Tragic.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 6 2005, 06:11 PM

Well, I agreed with some of the things he said, and this is a discussion board, and i'm eager to discuss... put it together I guess.

Its too bad that you're so easily discouraged out of the conversation, I thought things were pretty civil and productive, and I usually quite enjoy the back and forth on these issues, as they educate me and those who read them.

Tragic.

Yes, high marks for civility for sure. That's a step in the right direction at least.

I'll continue with a generalization. I've noticed that people on the opposite side of the spectrum of me have a difficult time evaluating events or entities that they support on their own merit and rather revert to bringing some second party or event into the equation to avoid the issue altogether by presenting a new one.

It's troublesome to me. You didn't do it, and that was refreshing.....but I still don't understand why you don't have a problem with someone else doing it. Maybe it's simply because you have more disdain for that secondary entitiy than you do for the primary one?

Still, what the hell does the US Government's corruption have to do with that of the UN?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Feb 6 2005, 06:26 PM
Yes, high marks for civility for sure. That's a step in the right direction at least.

I'll continue with a generalization. I've noticed that people on the opposite side of the spectrum of me have a difficult time evaluating events or entities that they support on their own merit and rather revert to bringing some second party or event into the equation to avoid the issue altogether by presenting a new one.

It's troublesome to me. You didn't do it, and that was refreshing.....but I still don't understand why you don't have a problem with someone else doing it. Maybe it's simply because you have more disdain for that secondary entitiy than you do for the primary one?

Still, what the hell does the US Government's corruption have to do with that of the UN?

I suppose its a simple matter of being p*ssed that there are currently calls for the UN's destruction over a corruption scandal, when there are no similar calls for the US administration's destruction over a corruption scandal (at least, not 'here').

There was widespread speculation that Cheney and Halliburton's relationship awarded many contracts to Halliburton that shouldn't have been issued. Just like the widespread speculation that the Oil for Food program has been filched for billions. Both are true, but the fallout will be much less in both cases than is probably required.

And, I suppose I have to admit, I'm biased based on what I currently know about the world to be predisposed to favour the UN over the US. I'm a product of my education, society, and upbringing. Luckily I don't really have to be worried about being 'objective', because I dont' believe any one person really can be. We each have to just fight for what we believe in, based on what we can find out.

Thats probably why the board is as 'polarized' as you see it, and why its not going to change. Most of us are probably to old to learn new ideologies anyway, this is really usually just an exercise in argument. But its a fun one! :P

[Displaced Flames fan]

I haven't been paying close enough attention to know that people here have called for the end of the UN over this.

For me, it's more about the UN being part of the problem in Iraq for a dozen years and then choosing to do nothing to fix the problem they created and instead demonized the US for ending Hussein's reign. It calls into question the motives of the body, and those should be PURE.

The UN should be held to the highest possible standards.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Feb 6 2005, 06:55 PM
I haven't been paying close enough attention to know that people here have called for the end of the UN over this.

For me, it's more about the UN being part of the problem in Iraq for a dozen years and then choosing to do nothing to fix the problem they created and instead demonized the US for ending Hussein's reign. It calls into question the motives of the body, and those should be PURE.

The UN should be held to the highest possible standards.

Exactly. In fact, all governments and international organizations should be held to the highest possible standards... or, barring that, the same standards.

I hear arguments that the UN is responsible for the apparent skimming of Oil for Food dollars, which is why its obvious that those responsible must be found and charged. I don't see how the organization's reputation takes the hard hit for a few of its players though.

If the Martin government gets totally exposed over the patronage scandals here, the obvious thing would be to charge him, or those responsible, and probably vote the criminals out in the next election. The first thing to jump to mind would _not_ be, 'this government doesn't work, look at the corruption, lets tear it down as an institution'. It serves a purpose, a great one.

Don't hate the game Dis, hate the players

[Claeren]

The UN (And LofN before that) has been looking for USA support for 80 years and for the majority of those 80 years they have not got it. YET the Right in America is all too quick to show why the UN does not work and how they should never co-operate with it. Maybe, just maybe if the 'greatest nation on earth' and the 'United Nations' teamed up something better then eithers individual contribution could be attained?

Instead America wants their way ALL the time and because the UN does not offer that they pick at it and pick at it... I am saying that America is SO GREAT that if they actually co-operated for once and shared the playground an overall better and legitimate (<key) result could take place. In fact to argue that the UN has failed is to argue that the USA has failed because if they chose to do so the UN could be the single greatest unifying institution on earth. Unfortunately for the world the USA has never ever liked unifying institutions....

I am in no way implying America is not a great and powerful nation, i am saying that if their right-wing theorists held themselves to the same threshold of behavior that they do the rest of the world not only would America garner a lot more respect (what with not being constant hypocrites) but would make a much larger and legitimate (<still key) dent in the worlds problems to the benefit of all...

Claeren.

[Displaced Flames fan]

The US doesn't support the UN?

I think we provide the majority of the funding that keeps the UN running.

I think you may be guilty of assuming the radical right represents the mainstream right as well. I'm on the right, almost everyone I know is on the right....and none of us are spouting off like Rush Limbaugh on this issue. I'm not sure you're in touch with what the mainstream right in the US thinks.

[Claeren]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Feb 6 2005, 11:55 AM
I haven't been paying close enough attention to know that people here have called for the end of the UN over this.

For me, it's more about the UN being part of the problem in Iraq for a dozen years and then choosing to do nothing to fix the problem they created and instead demonized the US for ending Hussein's reign. It calls into question the motives of the body, and those should be PURE.

The UN should be held to the highest possible standards.

The UN is nothing but the conglomeration of its member states.

America is arguably its greatest and most valuable state.

America called for the sanctions on Iraq.

America is famous for being the least supportive and most deliquent of all UN member states.

America failed the UN which failed Iraq.

It is without question that if America had helped provide the will and the resources for the UN to better accomplish their mission in Iraq they would have. Instead they do nothing for those 10 years of sanctions but complain about how useless the UN is and then cry foul when the UN fails in a mission THEY, the USA, wanted them to undertake.


That is not about hating America, it is about demanding they accept responsibility as the greatest nation on earth or that they stop complaining about the institutions trying to fill the gap they refuse to accept needs to be filled. (The inclusion, legitimacy, and co-operation gap)


Claeren.

PS - It should be pointed out that while there was corruption in the UN program they actually succeeded in keeping ANY sort of major weapons program from being developed in Iraq. (As admitted by the current Administration).

[Claeren]

" The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $10 billion each year, or about $1.70 for each of the world's inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is just a tiny fraction of the world's military spending. Yet for over a decade, the UN has faced a debilitating financial crisis and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN's voluntary funds. As of December 31, 2004, members arrears to the Regular Budget topped $357 million, of which the United States alone owed $241 million (68% of the regular budget).""


On a GDP percentage level America is the lowest contributor; owes the most, gives the least, yet arguably has the greatest 'moral'(?) obligation to give.

Claeren.