Untied Nations [sic]
Unfortunately, the rumors of a Kofi Annan no confidence vote doesn't appear to be a reality. The inability of the United Nations to carry out any meaningful actions merely reinforces the reality that it is simply a giant bureaucratic entity aimed at sucking up and wasting Ted Turner's billion dollar boondoggle.
As much as the Democrats pin the situation in Iraq on Bush, I don't think he deserves so much credit/blame. The Iraq situation escalated because of the inability of the UN to enforce it's very own decrees. The repeated snubs by Saddam was likely a result of the coziness the UN had with the dictator. Further investigation into the oil-for-food corruption will likely show the decay in the UN. Indeed, the problems already appear to run very deep. The Oregonian reports, "Early estimates suggested that $5 billion to $10 billion had been raked off of the $60 billion oil-for-food escrow account. This went undetected, or at least unreported, by the U.N., whose officers supposedly were monitoring the program."
William Safire writes in the NYT, "The principal investigating body of the Senate is not helpless. Today witnesses from Treasury and C.I.A., as well as its own investigators, will present evidence that the huge rip-off engineered by Saddam Hussein - with the connivance of corrupt U.N. officials and companies protected by Security Council members like Russia and France - was even greater than the $10 billion figure estimated by our G.A.O. Going back to 1991 and including the predecessor to oil-for-food, an outside source tells me that the U.N.-maladministered profiteering reached $23 billion. Such heavy spending affects U.N. votes."
What a shock that the UN and some countries did not want Iraq liberated, arguing for time to allow these corrupt actions to continue. Should this continue, it wouldn't be a surprise for the United Nations to go the way of that other international organization that fell apart. What should be done? Clearly, a new leader needs to take control of the UN and clear out the corruption. More oversight needs to be done and the pandering to individual countries needs to be stopped. Governing by consensus is not always effective and the UN is a clear example of when it isn't. Unfortunately, there is also likely not an easy situation since there needs to be a carrot along with the stick of being a part of an international organization.
UPDATE: I just noticed skimming through the Wikipedia entry about the reasons the League of Nations failed--worth comparing to today.
As much as the Democrats pin the situation in Iraq on Bush, I don't think he deserves so much credit/blame. The Iraq situation escalated because of the inability of the UN to enforce it's very own decrees. The repeated snubs by Saddam was likely a result of the coziness the UN had with the dictator. Further investigation into the oil-for-food corruption will likely show the decay in the UN. Indeed, the problems already appear to run very deep. The Oregonian reports, "Early estimates suggested that $5 billion to $10 billion had been raked off of the $60 billion oil-for-food escrow account. This went undetected, or at least unreported, by the U.N., whose officers supposedly were monitoring the program."
William Safire writes in the NYT, "The principal investigating body of the Senate is not helpless. Today witnesses from Treasury and C.I.A., as well as its own investigators, will present evidence that the huge rip-off engineered by Saddam Hussein - with the connivance of corrupt U.N. officials and companies protected by Security Council members like Russia and France - was even greater than the $10 billion figure estimated by our G.A.O. Going back to 1991 and including the predecessor to oil-for-food, an outside source tells me that the U.N.-maladministered profiteering reached $23 billion. Such heavy spending affects U.N. votes."
What a shock that the UN and some countries did not want Iraq liberated, arguing for time to allow these corrupt actions to continue. Should this continue, it wouldn't be a surprise for the United Nations to go the way of that other international organization that fell apart. What should be done? Clearly, a new leader needs to take control of the UN and clear out the corruption. More oversight needs to be done and the pandering to individual countries needs to be stopped. Governing by consensus is not always effective and the UN is a clear example of when it isn't. Unfortunately, there is also likely not an easy situation since there needs to be a carrot along with the stick of being a part of an international organization.
UPDATE: I just noticed skimming through the Wikipedia entry about the reasons the League of Nations failed--worth comparing to today.
posted by Kevin at 11/20/2004 05:11:00 PM
1 Comments:
I'd say Clinton would have a better chance at reorganizing the UN, or at least getting more countries to respect it. I was going to include in the post that I read about Clinton wanting the job, but couldn't find the link originally. Didn't want to post to an unlinkable rumor, we're not Drudge quite yet.
Post a Comment
<< Home