Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Useless UN

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Useless UN

    This disaster exposes the myth of the UN's moral authority
    By David Frum
    (Filed: 09/01/2005)

    The helicopters are taking off and landing now in the tsunami-shattered villages and towns. The sick are being taken for treatment. Clean water is being delivered. Food is arriving. Soon the work of reconstruction will begin.

    The countries doing this good work have politely agreed to acknowledge the "coordinating" role of the United Nations. But it is hard to see how precisely the rescue work would be affected if the UN's officials all stayed in New York - or indeed if the UN did not exist at all.

    The UN describes its role in South Asia as one of "assessment" and "coordination." Even this, however, seems to many to be a role unnecessary to the plot. The Daily Telegraph last week described the frustration of in-country UN officials who found they had nothing to do as the Americans, Australians, Indonesians, and Malaysians flew missions.

    It will be the treasury departments of the G-7 missions that make decisions on debt relief, and the World Bank, aid donor nations, private corporations, and of course the local governments themselves that take the lead on long-term reconstruction. And yet we are constantly told that the UN's involvement is indispensable to the success of the whole undertaking. How can that be?

    In a notable interview on December 31, Clare Short, the former international development secretary, explained that the UN possessed a unique "moral authority", and without this authority, the relief effort would be in trouble because … well, after that it gets hazy.

    It is obviously not because of the UN that countries like Britain, the United States, Germany, Japan, Australia, and India are donating so generously to the countries in need. Nor, even more obviously, is it because of the UN that the afflicted countries are accepting aid. Nor again has the so-called authority of the UN induced Burma to accept any aid that Burma's rulers find politically threatening.

    Nor finally is the UN really quite so hugely popular as supporters such as Ms Short would wish it believed. The Pew Charitable Trusts – the same group that conducts those surveys on anti-Americanism worldwide – reports that the UN carries much more weight in Europe than it does in, say, the Muslim world. Only 35 per cent of Pakistanis express a positive attitude to the UN, as do just 25 per cent of Moroccans, and but 21 per cent of Jordanians.

    The UN's authority is instead one of those ineffable mystical mysteries. The authority's existence cannot be perceived by the senses and exerts no influence on the events of this world. Even the authority's most devout hierophants retain the right to disavow that authority at whim, as Ms Short herself disavowed its resolutions on Iraq. And yet at other times those same hierophants praise this same imperceptible, inconsequential, and intermittently binding authority as the best hope for a just and peaceful world. An early church father is supposed to have said of the story of the resurrection: "I believe it because it is absurd." The same could much more justly be said of the doctrine of the UN's moral authority.

    Whence exactly does this moral authority emanate? How did the UN get it? Did it earn it by championing liberty, justice, and other high ideals? That seems a strange thing to say about a body that voted in 2003 to award the chair of its commission on human rights to Mummar Gaddafi's Libya.

    Did it earn it by the efficacy of its aid work? On the contrary, the UN's efforts in Iraq have led to the largest financial scandal in the organisation's history: as much as $20 billion unaccounted for in oil-for-food funds. UN aid efforts in the Congo have been besmirched by allegations of sexual abuse of children; in the Balkans, by charges of sex trafficking.

    Is the UN a defender of the weak against aggression by the powerful? Not exactly. Two of this planet's most intractable conflicts pit small democracies against vastly more populous neighbouring states. In both cases, the UN treats the democracies – Israel, Taiwan – like pariahs.

    This record may explain why the UN is regarded by so many Americans as neither moral nor authoritative – and why American leaders of both political parties reject UN attempts to control American actions.

    And indeed, when we talk about UN authority, it is UN authority over America that we always seem to have in mind. The UN is the stated topic, but it is American power that is the real subject of concern.

    As Ms Short complained in The Independent on January 1: "At a time when the world faces terrible challenges, of poverty, disorder and environmental degradation, there is a real danger that the US government is consistently undermining the only legitimate system of international co-operation that we have." In a world that contains – among others – the EU, Nato, the World Trade Organisation, and literally hundreds of regional and global governmental and non-governmental associations, it seems bizarre to describe the UN as the sole legitimate international actor.

    But of course the UN is the only one of these actors consistently to come into conflict with the United States. It is this bias of the UN system – and not any of the UN's meagre list of achievements – that causes so many on the global Left to regard it as legitimate in a way that they do not regard, say, international treaties for the protection of patents.

    Europeans often interpret American skepticism about the UN as a sign of American indifference to world opinion. Yet Americans care passionately for the good opinion of the world. Nothing John Kerry said during the 2004 campaign inflicted as much damage to the President as his charges that George W Bush had ruptured alliances and lowered America's standing in the world.

    Unlike many on the European Left, however, Americans seem able to remember that the UN is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

    Americans see the UN not as an ineffable mystery, but as an institution invented six decades ago by human beings no wiser than their modern successors to respond to the problems of their time - which were not the same as the problems of ours.

    If the UN keeps failing, the answer is not to ignore its faults, but to reform or replace it. There is growing interest in some American quarters in the idea of a new international association, open only to countries that elect their leaders democratically. At a minimum, Americans expect transparency, accountability, and some greater approach to even-handedness in the Middle East. But the real challenge to all of us, in all the democracies, is this: to be guided by realities, not fantasies - and especially not such uniquely unconvincing fantasies as the allegedly unique moral authority of the United Nations.

    David Frum is a former speech-writer for President Bush and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author with Richard Perle of An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...1/09/ixop.html

    Reaction:

    Useless, Good For Nothing UN

  • #2
    I always knew the UN was unless when it came to military and political work. I used to think they were halfway capable of doing aid work, disater relief, etc now it is obvious they are totally useless. Time to have the City of New York Sheriff's Office post an order of eviction on the main door into the UN Building ....

    Comment


    • #3
      I wonder how much of the relief money will go missing?
      No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
      I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
      even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
      He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ChrisF202
        I always knew the UN was unless when it came to military and political work. I used to think they were halfway capable of doing aid work, disater relief, etc now it is obvious they are totally useless. Time to have the City of New York Sheriff's Office post an order of eviction on the main door into the UN Building ....
        This is exactly why the United Nations Organization needs to be replaced. The UN has proven time and again that it is inefficient and ineffective, and is at the same time to powerful to trust, and to weak to do anything of real value. Its almost hard to believe that an organzation so grossly out of touch with the worlds needs could even exist.

        The time has come for change!
        "Liberate the Oppressed, Unite the Free..."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Confed999
          I wonder how much of the relief money will go missing?
          That's another good point, an international organization with any measurable amount of power needs to have a hell of a lot more oversight when it comes to how funds entrusted to that organization are spent.

          We need to stop filling the pockets of crooks and put that money where it can do some good!
          "Liberate the Oppressed, Unite the Free..."

          Comment


          • #6
            Same crap, different bowl.

            The UN, EU, Red Cross bureaucrazy answers to no one and that's the main problem. The EU is too young to have any real mess and the Red Cross done far too much good for anyone to notice the stink ... but it's there. Anyone want to look at the Red Cross blood supply across the globe?

            The answer was, is, and always will be people of dedication and honour stepping up and doing the job no matter what the consequence. I was, am, and always will be proud of UNPROFOR even though I am quite aware of its failings.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
              I was, am, and always will be proud of UNPROFOR even though I am quite aware of its failings.
              You should be, they do their missions to the best of their ability with limited troops, resources and above all, heavy weaponry. Look at Maj. Gen. Dallaire in Rawanda.

              OOE, have you ever met Dallaire? Were doing Rawanda now in my Genocide in History class, he seems like quite a leader who did his mission to the best of his ability. Was he ever promoted or rewarded for what he did?

              Comment


              • #8
                I met Lieutenant-General Dallaire after he returned from Rwanda and assumed command of Land Force Central Area (where he was promoted to LGen). He was slated to become the next Chief of Land Staff when depression finally forced him to take a Leave of Absence and eventually retirement.

                I was only a Major then and I never spent any real time with the General.

                I have ample sympathies for the man but I do criticize his mission performance, especially with what happenned to the Belgian Para-Commandoes. His decisions, when examined individually, are understandable and I could even see myself or my boss MGen MacKenzie making them. But taking them collectively, there were far too many failure points for me to state that he was performing up to expectations.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Confed999
                  I wonder how much of the relief money will go missing?
                  That's why they shouldn't lay a finger on any of that money, ever.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                    The UN, EU, Red Cross bureaucrazy answers to no one and that's the main problem.
                    Yes, and add to it every government buracracy across the board.
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                    The answer was, is, and always will be people of dedication and honour stepping up and doing the job no matter what the consequence. I was, am, and always will be proud of UNPROFOR even though I am quite aware of its failings.
                    Once again, Sir, thank you. The world would not be the same without you.
                    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Speaking of Tsunami aid, has anyone here donated any money or anything? My english class had a bake sale and I got a few brownies lol. Im hoping she dosent give the money to the UN, any ideas for a good charity she should send the money to?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ChrisF202
                        Speaking of Tsunami aid, has anyone here donated any money or anything? My english class had a bake sale and I got a few brownies lol. Im hoping she dosent give the money to the UN, any ideas for a good charity she should send the money to?
                        Red Cross South Asian Tsunami Fund. They have less bureaucrazy than the UN which means that less would be skimmed off the top.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ChrisF202
                          Speaking of Tsunami aid, has anyone here donated any money or anything? My english class had a bake sale and I got a few brownies lol. Im hoping she dosent give the money to the UN, any ideas for a good charity she should send the money to?
                          In this country the red cross guarantees that ALL the money goes to the areas affected, their own organisation is funded separately from donations for that purpose, thats why I chose them to donate to.
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have always said and I continue to believe that NO organization made up of members with divergent objectives can possibly be anything to anybody but trouble as they squabble amongst themselves and maneuver for advantage.

                            You don't ask the rapacious banker that wants to foreclose on your property to help you when your house catches fire. He won't show up, or if he does, he's there to get in the way and to impede your REAL friends and neighbors as they try to save your property FOR YOU, not FOR HIM. It may be a bona fide emergency, and you may need a lot of help...but HE IS NOT THERE TO HELP YOU.

                            The UN is full of bad actors and disreputable regimes. Not our sort of people, dahling.

                            The people that ARE our sort - dahling - are the only people we should enter into projects, endeavors, pacts and agreements with, as they're the only ones likely to keep their word.

                            I only invite my friends over for barbecue, never my enemies. If I have anything to say to THEM, I know where and how to find 'em.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bluesman
                              I have always said and I continue to believe that NO organization made up of members with divergent objectives can possibly be anything to anybody but trouble as they squabble amongst themselves and maneuver for advantage.

                              Are you describing the UN? Or Congress?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X