United Nations

Waving Goodbye

by

Steven den Beste gives us a heads up to this op-ed in the International Herald Tribune. The author, a 20 year veteran of the United Nations, asks why the organization should keep their HQ in New York City. Why not move to Montreal?

I was shocked to find that I actually agreed with some of the author’s reasons for the move. The cost of building a new UN campus could be offset by selling the old HQ, land is cheaper in Montreal than New York, and Canada has enough high-tech infrastructures to accommodate the day-to-day business of the international body.

One thing the author stated that I certainly don’t agree with is that moving the UN to Canada would send a clear signal that rampant corruption will no longer be tolerated. Instead I see it as a way for the UN to become surrounded with people that have a common understanding.

The author also didn’t mention the greatest benefit that might be realized if the UN moves out of the United States. It might make it easier for the American people to accept the idea that we’d be better off without this group of crooked career bureaucrats.

Hey, I might just donate some money for the move myself!

I Think I’m Going to Apply for a Job

by

According to this news article, the only official at the United Nations that was fired over the Oil for Food scandal has been reinstated. Not only that, but he’s been given back pay for the time he was out of work.

So that means that he was innocent, right? Someone made a mistake and this is how they fix it.

Not exactly. It seems that at least two separate investigations have found that he was guilty, but the UN still reinstated him and passed out the money.

Joseph Stephanides was the head of the corrupt and poorly managed Security Council Affairs Division, the UN agency which is at the heart of the Oil for Food scandal. It was while he was holding down the top chair in 1996 that he advised a British company on what they should bid in order to snag a UN contract. This is hardly as bad as loading up the trunk of his Mercedes with raw yellowcake and driving across the Iraq border, but it is a clear act of favoritism. The bidding process was tainted by his actions.

Stephanides maintains that he was simply acting on orders from the UN Security Council sanctions committee. He claims that singling him out is a cynical ploy to deflect criticism from those who are guilty of more serious crimes. This is almost certainly true, but it doesn’t detract from the fact that he contributed to the snakepit of corruption in his own little way.

I need to get my resume together and apply for a job at the UN. Looks like you can do no wrong even when it’s obvious that you did wrong.

The Slaughter of Innocence

by

The UK Telegraph reports that UNICEF Belgium has produced a short film in order to raise money for a program to rehabilitate former child soldiers in Burundi. The film shows the popular cartoon characters The Smurfs as their village is bombed. The final shot is of Baby Smurf as he cries in a field of unmoving blue bodies and the ruins of the village burns in the background.

The reasoning behind such horrific images is to motivate jaded contributors to open their wallets and dig deep.

Philippe Henon, a spokesman for UNICEF Belgium, said his agency had set out to shock, after concluding that traditional images of suffering in Third World war zones had lost their power to move television viewers.

If relatively bloodless scenes will rake in the cash, why didn’t the people who created the ad really lay on the gore? It seems that they wanted to but cooler heads prevailed.

Julie Lamoureux, account director at Publicis for the campaign, said the agency’s original plans were toned down. “We wanted something that was real war – Smurfs losing arms, or a Smurf losing a head -but they said no.”

So this is the civilized version. Glad they cleared that up for me.

The Smurfs have been around since 1958, so it’s certain that most adults have a certain amount of affection for these beloved childhood icons. The ad is also not to be broadcast before 9 PM, an obvious attempt to reduce exposure to younger viewers. But Smurfs are, after all, cartoon characters that are at the center of children’s lives. Images showing the violent death of these characters are bound to have a profound and long lasting effect on the most vulnerable and impressionable section of the population.

Everyone involved in the project say that they just want to raise money for a noble and worthy cause, but I can’t help but think that there is another agenda here.

Scratching my Head

by

Another item of interest at Strategypage.com is this essay by James Dunnigan. It seems that Russia has petitioned the United Nations to outlaw the production and sale of AK-47 knockoffs.

I’ve always wanted to make a living as a writer, so I’m actually in favor of reasonable copyright and patent laws. But I can’t help but wonder what the Russians are trying to accomplish here. What do they think the UN will be able to do, anyway?

It also strikes me as ironic that Russia is appealing to the one body which has been at the forefront of efforts to ban the sale of small arms. While it’s logical to assume that the UN would be in favor of outlawing the sale of knockoff AK’s, I don’t think they’ll be too thrilled that the main reason for the measure is so Russia can reap the benefits of exporting assault rifles.

It’s a strange world we live in.