Did you know? #5

Got a link for that? Just curious about what agencies we’re talking about, and whether these are actual contributions, contributions in kind, or commitments that haven’t actually been paid.

Its cause we got all the bucks!

I’m all for it Gordon.

I’d say jump down to a more comfortable 3%…

Then we can watch all the rich Arab princes and dictators cry.

Of course no one in this country has the balls to tell the UN to shove it… Except my lovely home state who has made it perfectly clear that they will not allow the UN to demolish a park on a block across the street to expand that decrepit shitstain of a building.

The UN isn’t on my shit list because they don’t support Bush. They’re there because it is effectively controlled by a bunch of dictatorial regimes. Most of the agencies are corrupt beyond corrupt, it has no real oversight so payoffs are commonplace, and its total inability to find even the tiniest of moral compasses is pathetic at best, dangerous for sure. Sorry– the U.S. and other western democracies should NOT have the same standing as, say, Syria and Cuba in any organization. The UN was a good idea that has completely become a power outlet for thugs. There are plenty of humanitarian agencies in the world that could more than pick up the slack from a dissolved UN. I say let it crumble.

Sorry, Nath…I find it hard to believe that you have any knowledge at all of the UN’s agencies do. I respectfully suggest you read up a bit on what some the agencies are doing, and have done. It may give you some insight into why most of the world doesn’t view it as irrelevant at all, and sees it as a more trustworthy path to peace than the American government.

As a Canadian, I have absolutely no input into international policy as practiced by your country. The UN is where the rest of us…the ones without the huge troops and nukes and whatnot…try to hash things out. You don’t need it (or you think you don’t): the rest of us realize that we do.

As for corruption, etc…yup. Probably less than the Church, but as corrupt as any bureaucracy of comparable size.

Oh, and as for “Simple minded bashing,” it’s not much different than “knee jerk complacency.”

If I’m guilty of the former, you’re guilty of the latter.

As a Canadian, I have absolutely no input into international policy as practiced by your country. The UN is where the rest of us…the ones without the huge troops and nukes and whatnot…try to hash things out. You don’t need it (or you think you don’t): the rest of us realize that we do.

Then I’d say it’s time for the Canadians to get off their lazy asses and start pitching in for the big win.

“Oh, and as for “Simple minded bashing,” it’s not much different than “knee jerk complacency. If I’m guilty of the former, you’re guilty of the latter.”

Not sure how you figure that, partner. I haven’t suggested that the UN is blameless, or wonderfully run. I see huge needs for reform, and am still working my way through the current reform proposals with some interest. So the “knee-jerk complacency” refers to…?

The difference is, I think, that I have done work the the UNHCR in Guatemala, with the ILO in Belize, and on a number of World Bank funded programs. I’ve seen more than the scandal…I’ve seen incredibly good people doing incredibly important work with wonderful results.

Knee Jerk Complacency refers to the knee jerk defense of the UN that you lay out every time we discuss it. You can’t just leave a criticism of the UN out there without jumping in with something akin to what you said above, about good work and all.

And as for the size of the scandal, as I said, there are two criterion:

1. The financial size (estimated at $10 billion, but there might be more we don’t know about yet).

2. The number of international governmental officials and private companies around the world who took kickbacks, violated the embargo, and who made policy about Iraq (Kofi would be a good place to start; then work your way down).

You’ve been quite hard on the Bush administration for significantly less.

Bal, you always hold a nice flair for the dramatic…

Ummmm, no.

I am indicating that just once I’d like to see a criticism not have a but in it.

Sorry, I’m just not a but man in some ways.

The UN has turned itself into an international crime family. Its purpose has become (besides bashing the United States) to enrich itself and it’s bureaucrats. It serves no real purpose today that justifies it’s existence. Everyone knows about the scandalous and criminal oil for food deals, but that’s just one story that the media was forced to cover. There are equally outrageous stories of the UN’s incompetence that have not been covered by the media. For instance, during the war in the Baltic’s, UN “peace keepers” stood by while the Serbs slaughtered thousands of Bosnians during their campaign of ethnic cleansing. These atrocities were often perpetrated in plain sight of the “peace keepers”. The UN’s excuse was that if they intervened, that would be taking sides! God knows the UN is above taking sides! If the “peace keepers” aren’t allowed to protect innocent civilians, what the hell good are they? They also miserably failed in Rwanda where thousands of innocent Tutsi and Hutu’s were being slaughtered right under their noses. The UN is a morally bankrupt organization that stands for nothing good and tolerates everything bad. Who needs them?

I heard it on the radio this morning, but here’s a link with a more detailed breakdown. Granted, it’s from 2001, but the numbers jive pretty well so I doubt they’ve changed much…

http://tinyurl.com/3t5df

Fuck that! Pull the funds to a respectable share and watch them flounder.

Fortunately both your government and the private sector haven’t succumbed to the kind of simple-minded UN bashing that’s become so prevalent in right wing blogdom.

Yes, it is annoying when they don’t agree automatically with everything Mr. Bush wants to do, and the “we hate the UN” meme has dutifully done its rounds. But grownups actually look at what the UN DOES do, at the work of the UNHCR, UNICEF, WHO, UNEP, UNESCO…and they realize that the American investment in the UN (when the US actually pays, that is) buys a whole lot of stability that wouldn’t otherwise be there.

Corruption? Waste? Inefficiency? Absolutely. Like the US government or the Catholic Church, or any other large bureaucracy. Needs reorganization and restructuring to more effectively deliver on its mandate? Yup, and they’re trying to do just that.

oh balb: “simple-minded UN bashing”? maybe you’ve been reading the wrong places. the “bashing” (I like to call it criticism) I’ve seen is backed up by some simple facts that demonstrate how corrupt and irrelevant the UN really is. they aren’t doing crap about the corruption, waste and inefficiency there– there’s too much nepotism and the good ol’ boys club to ever truly address it with anything more than a dog and pony show. it’s one thing for a government to be corrupt, quite another when the world’s so-called law enforcement agency is– they’re supposed to be above it. pretty pathetic that it’s taking action by our Congress to drag the truth out for the American public to see– it’s our money that’s ending up in shady places, therefore we have the right to know the depths of the UN’s corruption.

Bal, unless the rules of the world have changed, two wrongs don’t make a right, so bringing the Catholic church into this really is a pointless endeavor.

As for the corruption, any scandal with the amount of money involved similar to the OFF program would be great. As far as I know, as far as financial size and how many people in the upper echelons of power are involved, nothing has ever happened on this scale.

You can keep dragging the Catholic Church and George W. Bush into it kicking and screaming if it makes you feel better, but it doesn’t do a whole lot to reinforce any point you’re trying to make.

Balb,
My disgust with the UN has nothing to do whether they agree or disagree with an American President or not, as you put it. It’s the outright corruption and lack of credibility.

I just want to see the foreigners get off their lazy asses and take their share of responsibility.

In particular, finances.

I don’t think there’s any other country out there that pulls it’s weight.

“Bal, unless the rules of the world have changed, two wrongs don’t make a right, so bringing the Catholic church into this really is a pointless endeavor.”

My point is simple, V. Bureaucracies engender corruption and inefficiency. Any hierarchical structure does. You try to minimize it in various ways, and you work to make the good outweight the bad.

“As far as I know, as far as financial size and how many people in the upper echelons of power are involved, nothing has ever happened on this scale.”

I’m sorry…nothing has every happened “where” on this scale? Give me an amount and I’ll find you a church, a government and a private sector scandal to match it.

“Pitching in for the big win”?

Eh?

Couple of points, V.

“Knee jerk”, to me, implies a reflexive defense (or attack) on something, without consideration or analysis. You refer to the UN as a stinking heap of shit, or whatever. I don’t share that view, and I try to explain why. Or, as you put it, I keep “jumping in with something akin to what you said above, about good work and all.” Yes, that’s what I do. You and others say the UN is useless. I try to explain that it’s worthwhile.

You want me to stop doing that? No problem. No more comments from me disputing your assessment of the UN. Cross my heart. Your blog.

The other word in your description of my attitude was “complacency”. I’ll leave you to yours.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to come across that way. You’re indicating that on this topic you don’t want anyone to disagree with you, and that’s fine.

btw: What about those scandals?