United Nations

One of the top news stories for today is that President Bush sidestepped the Senate and appointed John Bolton as US Ambassador to the United Nations.

The reports available at both CNN and the BBC are factual and avoid much by the way of spin. That’s not true of the story found at The Guardian, where the headline screams “Bush bypasses Senate to install neo-con at UN”.

I personally approve of Bolton’s appointment, mainly because I’m hoping that he will increase awareness amongst US voters of the UN’s incompetence and corruption. If he does then a decision by America to pull out of the organization and reduce it to insignificance will come all the sooner.

I think that this is also why Liberals like the staff at The Guardian are upset by Bolton’s appointment.

At any rate, Bolton has a great deal of work to do. I think he should start with the UN renovation scandal that Ginny has been writing about.

Corruption, bid-rigging and plain inefficiency are not foreign concepts – they are, indeed, true to human nature (and were as true in villages on the plains as in New York high rises). Still, villages on the plains never had the UN’s budget nor resources. Hinderaker gives background on the UN renovations. Of course, we are not surprised; the UN is not great at transparency. And projects like these are seductive if your conscience is unbothered about using other people’s (indeed, other nation’s) money. Trump is probably a good deal more careful than would be the average bureaucrat; he has had enough experience to know where such projects can come to grief. His testimony is quite specific in comparing his building costs with the UN’s projections.

A brief USA Today report notes: “Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who led the hearing, criticized the cost of the project and contended the United Nations was reluctant to disclose details.” Trump & Coburn may not be reliable (I don’t know & Trump obviously has his own ambitions); nonetheless, I do know that they are describing a human tendency that transparency and specificity in government projects are designed to control. And these are human tendencies to which the UN has not appeared immune.

Read more

I just came across this news story. It seems that the United Nations is going to undertake efforts to build new bridges between the West and Islam. The program is going to be called “Alliance of Civilizations”. An excerpt…

The campaign’s aim was to “bridge divides and overcome prejudice, misconceptions, misperceptions, and polarization which potentially threaten world peace,” U.N. chief spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

Recent events had “heightened the sense of a widening gap and lack of mutual understanding between Islamic and Western societies — an environment that has been exploited and exacerbated by extremists in all societies,” he said.

They readily admit that the bombings in London one week ago prompted this move. Taking seven days to call a press conference and announce their resolve to take action is moving at warp speed so far as the UN is concerned. But how long is it going to be before they actually do something? Read the last paragraph of the article and you’ll learn that they’re going to form a committee to study the problem and make suggestions. Don’t expect anything resembling a plan of action until late in 2006.

So nothing concrete is going to be done for at least the next 16 months or so. And this is just for what is, essentially, a public relations campaign. Instead of any internal committee, the UN should hire one of the ad agencies from Madison Avenue. They probably would save some money. They certainly would save a great deal of time.

I haven’t tried to avoid sounding too harsh because, let’s face it, that’s impossible so far as the UN is concerned. Instead I’ll make the prediction that this as yet unformed committee will be very careful to try and assign blame for acts of terrorism equally between Western culture and Islamic society. This is entirely unfair because there is a decided difference between the types of extremists the two environments produce.

Read more

Long time readers of this blog know that I’m not very happy with the United Nations. I think that it’s a corrupt, money hungry organization that routinely fails to live up to it’s promises or hype. Nothing would make me happier to live long enough to witness it’s end.

Supporters claim that it provides a great service to the majority of the world’s population and governments. The voices and concerns of smaller nations would remain unaired and unheard without the forum that the UN provides. If this is the case then I think the world can do it cheaper and more efficiently. Tear down the UN and replace it with something that’s not impotent with a bloated bureaucracy, doesn’t pander to despots and murderous dictators, and isn’t reflexively anti-American.

Considering all that, it should be a surprise that I wasn’t very enthused when I read this news item. (Hat tip to Sondra K.) It seems that the US House of Representatives has passed a bill that will require the UN to reform in order to avoid a serious reduction in contributions from the United States. The purpose is to force reform and reduce corruption.

The reason why I don’t support this move is because it allows the UN to hedge it’s bets. They can lurch along for decades on a reduced cash flow from the US, while cutting them off completely might just cause a total collapse. Token attempts at reform will allow supporters to claim that the United Nations has become a new organization, and that the US should start paying 100% again. (Any similarity between this fanciful scenario and how Saddam’s supporters actually tried to get sanctions against Iraq lifted is completely intended.)

Bottom line is that I think the US should sit back and allow the UN enough rope to hang itself. Link continued payments to reforms and unelected bureaucrats will be motivated to keep their hands out of the cookie jar. Let them operate as usual and eventually they won’t be able to cover up the corruption and incompetence.

“The last time the U.S. withheld funds, it led to a huge debt to the U.N. and inhibited our ability to lead within the institution,” Wirth said. “This is like trying to force a bank to renegotiate your home mortgage by refusing to make your monthly payments.”

Timothy Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation

Uh… no. Witholding funds to the U.N. is more akin to a casino withholding credit to a gambling junkie who can’t win and can’t stop.