UN takes over Tsunami relief

Remove all ads!

http://boortz.com/nuze/200501/01062005.html#un

I couldn't agree more.

Way to go GW! Just when the UN was about to disappear into complete irrelevance, Bush comes to the rescue.

Oh well, I am sure that most of the denizens here are probably dancing a jig over this news anyway, irregardless that even if the UN manages to keep its corrupt hands out of the till, another level of bureaucracy was just added which will mean less money for the victims of the tsunami. Good to know that politics yet again wins out over the best interests of the people.

I am glad I was able to steer my donations right around UNICEF, put a big smile on my face when I unchecked that box, leaving the money I donated and the 3X matching from my employer to go exclusively to the Red Cross.

 

How do you read this crap?

 

Ah, I had a momentary blank and couldn't work out where the sarcasm was placed. Soon cleared up by the article.
Has to be said my immediate thoughts when I heard it on the radio this morning were that Bush had learnt from Iraq, and decided to wash his hands of this particular mess.
Very amusing article, never knew the UN was dedicated to destroying American sovereignty, learn something new everyday. To be honest, given the way the Iraq re-building contracts went (Donald Rumsfeld, Bechtel, Cheney, Halliburton - anyone spot the link?) its rather amusing that someone thinks the UN can be called more corrupt than the American government.

Our donations went through the British Disasters Emergency Committee. No idea if it will be routed via the UN, but the major charity groups such as Oxfam and the British Red Cross are member agencies.

[ January 06, 2005, 17:05: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Carcaroth,

Nice US bashing! The US gov't is no worse than any other gov't, and a hell of a lot less corrupt than most.

What irks me the most is that we get bashed for not caring about the rest of the world, and not doing enough, and yet when we lead the charge to help a part of the world we have no vested interest in, (it is our military that is there doing the grunt work, too bad the cost of that doesn't get included in our "contributions", and without them all the aid in the world wouldn't mean squat because there would be no one to hand it out or organize it), and in swoops the UN to take over and put everything under powder blue beanies, undermining the image of what we are doing there. Seems we do good and someone else takes credit for it, and we do something wrong and we are condemned for it, even though the groups condemning us are often guilty of doing far worse on a regular basis.

 

On come now, DW, the U.S. has a very real vested interest in a lot of those areas. I'll use Indonesia as an example, as they were the hardest hit. Indonesia is a fledgling democracy, and also supports the largest muslim population in the world. While the populace is very skeptical of the U.S.'s intentions, the government itself is very supportive of the U.S., and their role in Iraq. Considering part of Bush's plan is to "win the hearts and minds" of Muslims around the globe, you can say it is very much in the U.S.'s interest to keep up good relations with Indonesia. The same applies to India to a large extent.

As far as the vested part goes, we're currently spending over 5 billion a month (which comes out to around 8 million dollars an hour) to "win the hearts and minds" so I don't know how much more vested you can get than that.

 

The implication was supposed to be that they don't have some natural resource that we can steal, as we are often accused of. Using your logic we have a vested interest in the whole world. Perhaps I should have said we don't stand to make a huge financial gain instead of vested interest.

I don't want to get way off topic, but nothing is ever done without some kind of return, even if it is just a "feel good" return. If there is absolutely no reward for a specific behavior, that behavior will never be exhibited.

 

Not bashing the US as a whole, just the current government. I saw it as fair game considering the article was bashing the UN and basically implying the US would do a better job. Do you deny that the current American government has rather strong ties to the corporations that got awarded the multi-million dollar contracts?
I fully accept that a lot of other goverments are just as corrupt as the American one, ours included. I personally believe the offer of American military help (obviously in a non-military capacity) for the disaster was well intended and should not have been rejected. I would much prefer to see soldiers providing aid than shooting people. However help should be much better co-ordinated from a central source - though yes, I think all the countries giving aid should get the credit. The US has enough on it's plate dealing with Iraq and the upcoming elections.

 

Seeing as the UN has mostly been pushed to the corner when it comes to politics and been told to focus on humanitarian questions and organising aid for disasters I find it almost amusing to see it being bashed for doing just that, well I would find it amusing if it were not so sad and scary.

 

Carcoroth,

I have no real issues with the Bush admin and its ties to Halliburton. The Clinton admin used this same corporation in no-bid arrangements as well.

I am more troubled by the close ties of the trial lawyers to the Democratic Party than I am any of the trumped up and or overblown accusations in regards to Halliburton and Enron.

joacqin,

I might feel a little sorry for the UN if it wasn't for the fact that it keeps demonstrating its desire to have legislative and judicial oversight in regards to the internal affairs of sovereign nations. Put that together with the fact that the UN seems to want the right to be able to levy taxes on the citizens of said nations, cannot police itself, and will not allow anyone to question or meaningfully investigate it, even when it is plainly evident that it has committed fraud, and I have no pity on this organization as it has destroyed its own credibility and relevance.

It is time to give up on it, tear it down, and start building the next League of Nations or United Nations.

Personally, I think this new organization should be called BOB.

 

What desire is that? Where has it showed that and when? What affairs of sovereign nations? The only thing I can think of is when the UN whines about human rights violation in various parts of the world, I reckon that could be seen as meddling with the judical system of sovereign nations. When and where has anyone from the UN said that they want to levy taxes?

The main point is that any critique against the UN should be better aimed at the member states and not the UN itself as the UN has *no* power on its, no say whatsoever, everything is run by its members. It doesnt even really have much of a staff on its own but borrow people for various assignments. Guess which memberstate who has the greatest say in the UN, France? Guess again, Russia? Again, ok, I will tell you, the US. Most of the criticque towards the UN is indirectly aimed at the US, the funny thing is that it is mostly Americans who complain about the UN and thus they complain about policies set mostly by Americans and executed mostly by Americans.

 

Global Tax:

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm

I could sit down and Goggle an unlimited number of instances of the UN meddling in the US political system or our education system, but why should I bother, you wouldn't be swayed anyway.

 

I wonder if I'll ever see the day when Darkwolf actually produces an unbiased source.

Well I have not read much about this global taxation thing and I am not very interested in it either since it will never go through. Global taxation would hurt a lot more nations than just the US so I really can't figure how this is messing with the US political system.

Well anyway I do feel the disaster aid should be organized by a global organisation and the only global organisation that has the resources and the expertise to do that is the United Nations.

 

I wonder if I will ever see the day when there is such a thing as an "unbiased source", or the day when people quit copping out and take the material to task rather than taking the lame easy way out and just dismissing the source.

Why don't you try taking on the material and discrediting it rather than taking the easy way out and discrediting the source?

Additionally, you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the UN. As an organization, the UN has practically no "expertise" or organization to handle such an issue. It will still be the US military and the Red Cross, + a few experts from various nations (again mostly US, but I don't doubt that the French will stand up and brag about how the 2 people they sent were invaluable) who get the job done, but it will be under a powder blue flag, so the UN will take credit, fooling more people like you into believing that the world would be a worse place without them.


[ January 06, 2005, 22:47: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

The article was about one official who was about to launch an *enquire* as to whether there might be any merit in getting funds for things which mostly go through the UN and which it spends a lot of its budget on, such as all the international treaties which are in effect to make international airplane travel efficient and global pollution issues.

All large organisations and governments launch studies and enquires into matters far more controversial than this every month, very few of them ever pass that state. It is like the contingency plans the US has for invading Canada, never hurts to look into the matter but from there to making it reality there is a long long way to go.

 

joacqin,

That is one way of looking at it, but given the fact that there is a large group of people who believe that the US does not have high enough taxes and should raise them to provide more international support (based on recent statements I believe that you fit in this demographic), I will take seriously any research that the UN does in regards to trying to put the US under UN authority for taxation, legislation, or judicial purposes.

It is kind of like if someone leaked our plans to invade Canada... I don't think the Canadians would be too happy with us!

It isn't so much what the UN can or can't do, or does or doesn't plan, it has to do with the fact that the UN is not an organization that is interested in freedom (spare me the link to their charter and I will spare you the arguments about who they appoint as committee heads), and that has demonstrated ambition to become more than it was ever intended. I have no issue with what the UN was originally intended as, and believe that it was a good concept, but it has grown so overbloated that it is rotting from the inside out, much like the US Federal Gov't, who it sees as its primary rival (unjustifiably) in its quest to take over rulership of the world.

 

Meh, the UN had problems from day 1. You can't give five voting groups in an assembly the ability to veto anything--and not be overriden--and expect it work out well.

 

DW, an American fearing the UN is just outright silly, the UN can *never* do anything the US doesnt want it to do. There is a reason that the UN is viewed as the US's lapdog in many parts of the world. The UN was created by the US and has been a tool for the US more than it have been anything else. This is why I find the American dislike for the UN so strange, is it because it, as according to its charter, does not support aggresive warfare? Oh, and I would like to say that it is the US federal government who sees the UN as an obstacle in its quest for strenghtening its world domination more than it is the other way around. As have been stated many many many many times before, the UN has basically *no* power on its own, none at all.

I am all for a world government, I dont see why we differentiate between one chunk of land with people on with other chunks of land with people on them, land is land and people is people. If we dont get rid of this silliness called borders we will never get past the state of tribal feuding we have been in since the dawn of humanity.

As for the Canada thing I actually think the plans or something of the kind were leaked a while ago. I remember seeing a thread over at civfanatics about it which is why I used it as an example.

AMaster, that is the main problem with the UN but do you have a solution do it? I dont think I have. Removing the vetoes and having straight majority votes in the security council might help a little, as is reforming the security council by kicking out France and the UK and putting in the EU and India. How to remove power from someone who has a veto though?

 

You can't. Unless you scrap what you have, and start over.

As is, the UN is ineffective. It needs massive change, up to and including dissolution.

 

The reflexive UN paranoia of the US right will remain an eternal mystery for me. As Joa expressed so well, an American fearing the UN is just outright silly.

The UN (and their sub-agencies, like UNICEF, WHO, etc.) handle the aid because their professionals are competent, because they are experienced, because they have in-country-expertise, because they know the language, because they have the professional expertise and they are trusted in the receiving nations (Just imagine that).

But that doesn't matter I take it Oil-for-food ... UN evil ... oil-for-food ... UN irrelevant ... oil-for-food ... UN loves Saddam ... UN loves terrorists ... US good ... black helicopters ... UN morally corrupt ... UN antichrist ... UN evil ... US good ... UN baaaaad - and of course, the evergreen: Booh!

So when the US/ UK controlled sanctions office screws up oil-for-food - that is, the US and the UK watching the sanctions and not noticing anything fraudulent or abusive for a decade, or pretending not notice because business is so great - then the UN and the secretary general solely are to blame, and not the two nations, who were actually overseeing the sanctions on behalf of the UN security council, too?

Did the US/ UK know and let go, or were they so incompetent not to notice? Everything going to Iraq went over their desks and was under their veto. And all that over a decade. Weird, huh?

But don't fear - I got a faithful solution: They must have been fooled by corrupt, greedy and evil UN officials (who didn't have any say or access on the sanctions and export and import licensing, but nevermind)! The US officials in the sanctions office must have been ignorant puppets of the scheming evil masterminds in the UN and in Baghdad!

Ain't life simple? How was that line from George Orwell's "1984" again? 'Ignorance is Strength'

Thanks for reminding me

[ January 08, 2005, 23:40: Message edited by: Ragusa ]